Case C-225/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March 2002 in the case of Rosa García Blanco against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social legislation, social-security benefit, unemployment insurance, worker (EU)

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/21

waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria
which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent
authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9
of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation
is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?

regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Directive 98/84/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on
the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of,
conditional access, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

2. Does Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by
Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction
with Article 9 of Directive 75/442 or with any other
provision of the same directive, preclude a Member State
which has not adopted within the period prescribed one
or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable
disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
permits to operate waste disposal installations such as
landfills?

3. Does Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by
Directive 91/156, mean that the plan or plans relating in
particular to ‘suitable disposal sites or installations’ must
be drawn up not later than 1 April 1993, or does it mean
that they must be drawn up within a reasonable period,
which may exceed the period prescribed for transposing
the Directive into national law?

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 28.3.1991, p. 32.

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law or, of course,
notified such measures to the Commission.

Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(1) OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54.

(Case C-219/02)

(2002/C 191/34)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 June
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Niels Bertil Rasmussen, of its
Legal Service.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March
2002 in the case of Rosa Garcı´a Blanco against Instituto
Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
la Seguridad Social

(Case C-225/02)

(2002/C 191/35)

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
(Social Court) No 3 of Orense of 30 March 2002, received at

C 191/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

the Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Rosa Garcı´a Blanco against Instituto Nacional de
la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad
Social on the following questions:

1. Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty on
European Union (Article 6 and Articles 48 to 52 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community) and
Article 45 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
of 14 June 1971, preclude a national provision under
which retirement contributions which the Organismo
Gestor del Seguro del Desempleo paid on behalf of a
worker for the period during which she was receiving
taken into
certain unemployment benefits, are not
account for the purposes of covering the various qualify-
ing periods established in the national legislation and of
giving entitlement to the old-age pension, when, because
of the long period of unemployment which it is sought
to protect, it is absolutely impossible for that worker to
claim credit for retirement contributions other that those
which have been invalidated by law, with the result that
only workers who have exercised the right to freedom of
movement are affected by that provision of national law
and are unable to qualify for the national retirement
pension, despite the fact
that, under Article 45 of
the aforementioned (EEC) Regulation, those qualifying
periods would have been regarded as completed?

2. Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty on
European Union (Article 6 and Articles 48 to 52 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community) and
Article 48(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971, preclude national provisions
under which retirement contributions which the Orga-
nismo Gestor del Seguro de Desempleo paid on behalf of
a worker for the period during which she was receiving
certain unemployment benefits, are not
taken into
account for the purposes of considering whether ‘the
total insurance or residence periods covered under the
legislation of that State amounts to one year’, when,
because of the long period of unemployment which it is
it is absolutely impossible for that
sought to protect,
for retirement contributions
worker to claim credit
other than those which fell due and were paid during
unemployment, so that only workers who have exercised
the right to freedom of movement are affected by that
provision of national law and are unable to qualify for
the national retirement pension, despite the fact that,
under Article 48(1) of the aforementioned EEC Regu-
lation, the national Organismo Gestor could not be
exempt from the obligation to award national benefits?

Appeal brought on 1 July 2002 by the International and
European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) against the
order of 18 April 2002 of the Fourth Chamber of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-238/00 between (1) the International and Euro-
pean Public Services Organisation (IPSO), (2) the Union
of Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.) and the
European Central Bank

(Case C-241/02 P)

(2002/C 191/36)

An appeal against the order of 18 April 2002 of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-238/00 between (1) the International
and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO),
(2) the
Union of Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.) and the
European Central Bank was brought before the Court of Justice
of
the European Communities on 1 July 2002 by the
International and European Public Services Organisation
(IPSO), represented by Boris Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt, Roth
Rechtsanwälte, Eckenheimer Landstraße 38, D-60318 Frank-
furt am Main, with an address for service at the offices of Marc
Glesener, Chairman of the Association Luxembourgeoise des
Employés des Banques et d’Assurances, 29 Avenue Monterey,
B.P. 325, L-2013, Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

3.

set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
18 April 2002 in Case T-238/00 (1), notified to the
appellants on 26 April 2002;

annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 7 July
2000;

order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested order, the Court of First Instance incorrectly
applied Community law by failing to observe the principle of
effective judicial protection (Articles 6 and 13 of ECHR and
the constitutional traditions of the Member States). It failed
to observe the principle of effective judicial protection by
incorrectly interpreting the expression ‘individual concern’ in
paragraph four of Article 230 EC. The Court of First Instance
defines the class of
‘all other persons’ too narrowly, by
restricting it to trade unions and failing to take account of all
other persons affected by the Conditions of Employment and
Staff Rules and is therefore unable to see precisely what
differentiates the applicants from ‘all other persons’, namely
the fact that they are able to conclude collective agreements