Case C-286/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich by order of that Court of 27 May 2003 in the case of Silvia Hosse against Land Salzburg
Date: 2003-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, health expenditure, interpretation of the law, self-employed person, social security, social-security benefit, wage earner

20.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/5

Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-257/03)

(2003/C 226/06)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1) Declare that by failing to transmit to the Commission data
concerning CO2 emissions from new passenger cars in
accordance with Article 4(4) of Decision No 1753/2000/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 June 2000 establishing a scheme to monitor the aver-
age specific emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars (1),
Ireland has failed to fulfil
fully its obligations under
Article 4(4) of that Decision.

2) Order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4(4) of the Decision clearly provides that the first trans-
mission of information shall take place no later than 1 July
2001. Ireland has failed to comply with that deadline.

(1) OJ L 202, 10.8.2000, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof der Republik Österreich by order of that
Court of 27 May 2003 in the case of Silvia Hosse against
Land Salzburg

(Case C-286/03)

(2003/C 226/07)

the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) der Republik Österreich of 27 May 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Silvia Hosse against Land Salzburg on the
following questions:

Justice of

1. On a proper construction of Article 4(2b) of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the

application of social security schemes to employed per-
sons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community (1), as amended by
in conjunction with
Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (2)
Annex II, Section III,
the
Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz (Law on Care Allowance of
the Land Salzburg) awarded to a member of the family of
a person employed in the Land Salzburg who lives with his
family in the Federal Republic of Germany excluded from
the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as a special
non-contributory benefit?

is care allowance under

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

May the family member of a person employed in the Land
Salzburg who lives with his family in the Federal Republic
of Germany claim that care allowance under
the
Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz be paid in the form of a
sickness benefit in cash in accordance with Article 19 and
the corresponding provisions of the other sections of
Chapter 1 of Title III of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
irrespective of the fact that he is principally resident in the
if he satisfies the other
Federal Republic of Germany,
conditions for receipt of the benefit?

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Can a benefit such as care allowance under the Salzburger
Pflegegeldgesetz awarded in the form of a social advantage
within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 (3) of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community
be made subject to the condition that the recipient of the
benefit must be principally resident in the Land Salzburg?

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative:

Is the fact that citizens of the Union who are employed as
frontier workers in the Land Salzburg but are principally
resident in another Member State are not entitled to claim
a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, such as care allowance
under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz, compatible with
Community law, in particular with the principles of non-
discrimination and citizenship of
the Union under
Articles 12 and 17 EC respectively?

If it is not: Does citizenship of the Union make it possible
also for dependent family members of such a frontier
worker who are likewise principally resident in another
Member State to obtain in their own right care allowance
the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz in the Land
under
Salzburg?

(1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II), p. 416.
(2) OJ L 136, 1992, p. 1.
(3) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1968(II), p. 475.