Case C-289/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht 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
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, lawyer, legal expenses, legal hearing, provision of services, redemption

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?