Case C-174/01: Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, chemical product, decontamination, waste disposal

C 173/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

1. Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide
for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to the protection of employees in the event of the
insolvency of their employer?

2. Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited
the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?

Question 1

Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
assembly of a chamber of workers?

3.

Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages
to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
of Directive 80/987/EEC?

Question 2

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
1980 on the development of the Association directly appli-
cable Community law?

4. Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken
as the basis for determining the reference period is that
of the request for the opening of proceedings?

5.

6.

Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period pro-
vided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
compatible with Article 141 EC?

In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?

(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.

Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-174/01)

(2001/C 173/52)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the
election proceedings brought by the electoral group
‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne
GewerkschafterInnen/UG’

(Case C-171/01)

(2001/C 173/51)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts-
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions:

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should

— Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/31

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

The provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 24 February
1988, put forward by the Grand Duchy as its disposal plan,
cannot be considered fully to meet
the requirements of
Article 11(1) of
the directive in so far as concerns the
equipment included in the inventory provided for by Article 4
thereof. Member States are to determine, on the basis of the
inventory provided for under Article 4(1) of the directive, the
dates on which it is possible, in view of the quantities of spent
PCB and of the number of contaminated pieces of equipment
involved and of the available processing capacity, to require
that the elimination and decontamination required by the
directive be carried out; the Luxembourg authorities, however,
have taken no steps to satisfy themselves that what they
termed the ‘filière de décontamination ou d’élimination’ is able
to process the equipment and PCB involved within the period
prescribed since, other than the laying down of a final deadline
of 31 December 2010, no indication is given as to plans
regarding the decontamination and elimination of spent
equipment and PCB in such a case.

(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.

Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-177/01)

(2001/C 173/53)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to send it a summary of inventories
compiled of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
5 dm3, plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of
inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein
and plans for the separate removal and collection of
equipment containing PCBs which is not subject
to
inventory in accordance with Article 4(1) and as referred
to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 4 and 11 of the abovementioned directive;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decree No 2001/63 of 18 January 2001 which the French
authorities forwarded to the Commission provides for the
drawing-up of a national inventory of equipment with a PCB
volume of more than 5 dm3 which is to be the basis for a
national plan for decontamination or disposal of inventoried
equipment which must subsequently be adopted in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 7(5) et seq of the
aforementioned decree. The Order of 13 February 2001 has as
its sole purpose to request those who hold equipment contain-
ing PCB to make a declaration before the Prefect. The
Commission therefore remains of the view, first, that the
implementation of a procedure for drawing up a national
inventory does not remedy the complaint regarding failure to
communicate to it a summary of inventories pursuant to
Article 4(1) of the directive.

Secondly, the adoption of that decree is not sufficient to
remedy the complaint that that Member State had not drawn
up either a plan for decontamination and/or disposal of
contaminated equipment or plans for the collection and
subsequent disposal of equipment not subject to inventory.

(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, by judgment of that court
of 26 April 2001 in the case of
(2)
Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot
Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen en
omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherm-
ing van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw,
Natuurbeheer en Visserij

Jippes,

(1) H.

(Case C-189/01)

(2001/C 173/54)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
27 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
(1) H. Jippes, (2) Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse
Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen
en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
en Visserij on the following questions: