Case C-60/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José Filipe Pereira Félix
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, building industry, interpretation of the law, national law, remuneration of work, social-security contribution, subcontracting

10.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

4.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

the question of whether

Does the content of the reference for a preliminary ruling,
together with the supporting documents, afford the
Court, in the light of its judgment in Case C-392/93
British Telecommunications [1996] (2), sufficient infor-
mation to answer
the
implementing provisions described fall within the scope
for discretion afforded to the national legislator under
Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems or does the Court leave it to the referring court
to answer this question?

( 1) European Court Reports 2001 p. I-09285.
( 2) European Court Reports 1996 p. I-01631.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
gericht by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the
case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José Filipe
Pereira Félix

(Case C-60/03)

(2003/C 112/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 14 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José
Filipe Pereira Félix on the following question:

Does Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty)
preclude a national system whereby, when subcontracting the
conduct of building work to another undertaking, a building
contractor becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who
has waived benefit of execution, for the obligation on that
undertaking or that undertaking’s subcontractors to pay the
minimum wage to a worker or to pay contributions to a
communal scheme for parties to a collective agreement where
the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker
after tax, social security contributions, payments towards the
promotion of employment or other such social
insurance
payments have been deducted (net pay), if the safeguarding of
workers’ pay is not the primary objective of the legislation or
is merely a subsidiary objective?

Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-83/03)

(2003/C 112/17)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

a)

its
find that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment in as much as it failed properly to determine
whether a project for the construction of a tourist port at
Fassacesia (Chieti) — a project covered by Annex II to the
directive — warranted the commencement of a procedure
to assess its impact on the environment, and

b)

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian authorities have given the Commission no expla-
nation of the reasons for which they took the view that there
impact assessment, in
was no need for an environmental
accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, to be
carried out in relation to a project for the construction of a
tourist port in Fassacesia (Chieti).

It is therefore unclear whether the characteristics of the project
were considered with reference to its possible impact on fauna
and flora and on the landscape. The fact that the area in
question has not been proposed as a Site of Community
Importance is all the more reason why the project’s impact on
fauna and flora and on the landscape should have been taken
into consideration. Moreover, the fact that this point was
considered only after building permission had already been
granted is further indication that the procedure followed was
incoherent, to say the least.