Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 24 January 2002 in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia Construções Lda (Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum wage)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, labour law, labour mobility, services company

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/3

respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the French
Republic, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

3

.Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 November 2001

in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum
price for producers)

(2002/C 84/04)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

for

annulment

In Case C-146/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —
application
of Commission Decision
1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34),
in so far as it disallowed ITL 7 421 939 820 of expenditure
incurred by the Italian Republic for aid for the processing of
tomatoes — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Mack-
en, President of
the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in
which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

24 January 2002

in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia
Construço˜ es Lda (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings
— Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum
wage)

(2002/C 84/05)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-164/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the infringement proceedings brought
before that court against Portugaia Construço˜ es Lda, on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty
the
(now Article 50 EC) and of Directive 96/71/EC of
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
Judges,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola,
Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in
which it has ruled:

1.

In assessing whether the application by the host Member State
to service providers established in another Member State of
domestic legislation laying down a minimum wage is compat-
ible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
EC), it is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the
national courts to determine whether, considered objectively,
that legislation provides for the protection of posted workers. In
that regard, although the declared intention of the legislature
cannot be conclusive, it may nevertheless constitute an indication
as to the objective pursued by the legislation.

C 84/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

2.

The fact that, in concluding a collective agreement specific to
one undertaking, a domestic employer can pay wages lower
than the minimum wage laid down in a collective agreement
declared to be generally applicable, whilst an employer estab-
lished in another Member State cannot do so, constitutes an
unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services.

1. Declares that, by providing for a second system of training
leading to entry to the profession of dentist, which does not
comply with Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978
concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of
dental practitioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3. Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of

the

European Communities to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 November 2001

in Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 78/687/EEC — Maintenance of a second system of
training leading to entry to the profession of dentist —
Maintenance of the possibility of dual registration in the
register of doctors and in that of dentists for doctors
mentioned in Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC)

(2002/C 84/06)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — application for a
declaration that, by maintaining a second system of training
for entry into the dental profession, which is contrary to
Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in respect of the activities of dental
practitioners (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 10), and by maintaining the
possibility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly
registered in the registers of medical and dental practitioners,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
teur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevo´ n and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 November 2001, in
which it:

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 November 2001

in Case C-221/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Giudice di Pace di Genova ): Giuseppe Conte v
Stefania Rossi (1)

(Architects’ fees — Summary procedure for the recovery of
debts — Opinion of the professional association — Articles 5
and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC))

(2002/C 84/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-221/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court,
Genoa)
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Giuseppe Conte and
Stefania Rossi — on the interpretation of Articles 5 and 85 of
the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
C.W.A. Timmermans,
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 29 November 2001, in which it has ruled: