Case C-282/02: Action brought on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, phosphorus, water pollution

C 261/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.10.2002

3.
For each case assigned to a large Chamber, namely the
Fifth and Sixth Chambers, to each of which seven judges are
attached, the five judges who are to sit shall be determined on
the basis of a list drawn up for the judicial year comprising all
the judges of the Chamber, except the President,
in the
following order:

Sixth Chamber

(President: Judge Puissochet)

Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken, Judge da Cunha Rodrigues,
Judge Schintgen, Judge Skouris and Judge Colneric.

(a)

the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges are
attached, in order of seniority;

Appointment of the First Advocate General

(b)

the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.

For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:

At its meeting held on 1 October 2002, in accordance with
Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice
appointed Advocate General
J. Mischo as First Advocate
General for a period of one year starting on 7 October 2002.

— the President,

— the Judge-Rapporteur,

— three judges appointed in order from the list; the starting-
point on that list shall be moved down one name at each
general meeting.

Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in order
from the list. However, should the President of the large
Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be replaced if
possible by the President of the small Chamber.

If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear and
determine two or more cases together (whether or not they
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.

For the period ending on 6 October 2003, the lists

4.
referred to above are as follows:

Third Chamber

(President: Judge Puissochet)

Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken and Judge de Cunha Rodrigues.

Fourth Chamber

(President: Judge Timmermans)

Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola and Judge von Bahr.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in
the case of Engin Ayaz against Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-275/02)

(2002/C 261/02)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 11 July 2002,
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Engin Ayaz against Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following question:

the Court Registry on 26 July 2002,

Is a stepson aged under 21 years of a Turkish worker who is
duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member
State a member of the family within the meaning of the first
paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
Association?

Action brought on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-282/02)

(2002/C 261/03)

Fifth Chamber

(President: Judge Wathelet)

Judge Edward,
Timmermans, Judge Jann and Judge Rosas.

Judge La Pergola,

Judge von Bahr,

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 July 2002 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

Judge

26.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261/3

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
gericht by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the
case of the Land of Brandenburg against Ursula Sass

— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary
to ensure a correct
transposition and application of
Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of 4 May 1976 on
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
charged into the aquatic environment of the Community,
Ireland has failed to comply with Directive 76/464/EEC
and in particular Articles 7 and 9 thereof and with its
obligations under the EC Treaty;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that, contrary to Articles 7 and 9 of
the Directive, Ireland has generally failed to reduce pollution
caused by phosphorus where this was already evident at the
time of adoption of the Directive and to prevent its emergence
and increase elsewhere. Furthermore,
in the Commission’s
view, Ireland’s quality objectives for phosphorus, introduced
in 1998, and Irish measures with regard to authorisation of
discharges do not comply with the requirements of Articles 7
and 9 of the Directive. In addition, the Commission considers
that
Ireland’s adopted programmes for the reduction of
phosphorous pollution suffer from significant shortcomings.

The Commission also submits that Ireland has failed to finalise
and adequately implement pollution reduction programmes
for List
than phosphorus and/or to
communicate programme summary results for these sub-
stances.

II substances other

( 1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.

(Case C-284/02)

(2002/C 261/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
of 21 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 2 August
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Land of
Brandenburg against Ursula Sass on the following question:

Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141 EC) and
Directive 76/207/EEC (1) prohibit, in a provision of a collective
agreement under which periods during which an employment
relationship is in abeyance do not count towards the qualifying
period, the exclusion of the period during which the employ-
ment relationship was in abeyance because the employee
concerned, on the expiry of the eligible eight-week period of
protection pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Mutterschutzgesetz
(Maternity Protection Law), claimed maternity leave pursuant
to Paragraph 244(1) of the Labour Code of the German
Democratic Republic (AGB-DDR) of 16 June 1977 (GBl. I,
p. 185) until the end of the 20th week after confinement?

(1) OJ L 39, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt München by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in
the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH against A & R
Gastronomie GmbH

(Case C-289/02)

(2002/C 261/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München (Munich Higher Regional Court) of 25 July 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH
against A & R Gastronomie GmbH on the following question:

Are Articles 49 and 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
decision of a national court in accordance with which, in a
Member State (domestic territory), the maximum amount of a
claim for reimbursement of the costs of the services of a lawyer
of a different Member State in domestic proceedings and of an
Einvernehmensanwalt (domestic lawyer acting in conjunction
with the foreign lawyer) is the sum of the costs including VAT
which would have been incurred in the case of representation
by a domestic lawyer?