Case C-16/04: Action brought on 20 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, accident prevention, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, occupational health, occupational safety, workplace

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/19

3. Must Directive 2002/2/EC be interpreted as meaning that
its application, and therefore its effectiveness, is subject
to the adoption of a positive list of
feed materials
containing their specific names, as set out in the tenth
recital to the preamble and the Commission Report
(COM2003 178) (2) dated 24 April 2003 or must the
implementation of the directive in the Member States
must take place before the adoption of the positive list of
feed materials laid down by the directive, with reference
to a list of the feed materials contained in the compound
feedingstuffs by the names and generic definitions of their
commodity classes?

4.

Is Directive 2002/2/EC to be regarded as unlawful on
the grounds of infringement of the principle of equal
treatment and non-discrimination to the detriment of
feedingstuff producers when compared with the pro-
ducers of foodstuffs for human consumption in so far as
the former are subject to rules requiring indications of the
quantities of feed materials in compound feedingstuffs?

as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, must the definition of
working time set out in the directive be considered to
apply exclusively to the Community thresholds estab-
lished by the directive or must it be considered to have
general scope, applying also to the thresholds which,
while adopted under the various national legal orders
with a view to transposing the directive, may in fact be
set — as they have been in France in the interest of
employee protection — at a level affording greater
protection than the thresholds established by the direc-
tive?

2.

To what extent could a strictly proportional system of
equivalence, which involves calculating the total number
of hours in attendance before applying a weighting
mechanism to them which reflects even the very least
work-intensive periods during periods of inactivity, be
considered compatible with the objectives of the Working
Time Directive?

(1) OJ L 63 of 6.03.2002, p. 23.
(2) Not published.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ L 307 of
13.12.1993, p. 18).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
by order of that Court of 3 December 2003 in the case of
Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail,
Fédération nationale des syndicats des services de santé
et des services sociaux CFDT and Fédération nationale de
l’action sociale Force Ouvrière against Secrétariat général
du gouvernement; Intervener: Union des fédérations et
syndicats nationaux d’employeurs sans but lucratif du
secteur sanitaire, social et médico-social

(Case C-14/04)

(2004/C 59/31)

Action brought on 20 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-16/04)

(2004/C 59/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Council
of State) of 3 December 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail, Fédér-
ation nationale des syndicats des services de santé et des
services sociaux CFDT and Fédération nationale de l’action
sociale Force Ouvrière against Secrétariat général du gouverne-
ment; Intervener: Union des fédérations et syndicats nationaux
d’employeurs sans but lucratif du secteur sanitaire, social et
médico-social (Union of national federations and unions of
non-profit-making employers in the health, social and medico-
social sectors) on the following questions:

1.

In the light of
the Working Time
Directive (1), namely to lay down minimum safety and
health requirements for the organisation of working time,

the purpose of

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter
Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that

a)

by virtue of the fact that, contrary to the require-
ments of Community law,

— § 30(4) VBG 1/GUV.01 permits sliding doors
and revolving doors as emergency doors,

C 59/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

— § 1(1), § 3(1), § 35 and § 37 of the Muster-
bauordnung do not contain any sufficiently
clear workplace or protection rules for sky-
lights, and

— § 3(1) point 1, and § 20 of the Arbeitsstätten-
verordnung do not contain sufficiently binding
rules for loading ramps,

b)

and also by failing to inform the Commission of the
amendment of the laws at issue, the Federal Republic
of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 3 and 10 of Council Directive 89/654/
EEC (1) of 30 November 1989 concerning the mini-
mum safety and health requirements for the work-
place (first individual directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).

2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs

of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for
implementing the directive expired on
31 December 1992 without the Federal Republic of Germany
having adopted the necessary provisions in order to comply
with its obligations under Article 3 in conjunction with
Annex I, point 4.4, third sentence, point 10.1, first sentence,
point 10.2 and point 14.1 of the directive.

(1) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1.

Action brought on 21 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-17/04)

(2004/C 59/33)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 Janu-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana of the Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive
into domestic law expired on 27 November 2002.

(1) OJ L 309 of 27.11.2001, p. 1.

Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-20/04)

(2004/C 59/34)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 January
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2002/50/EC of 6 June 2003
adapting to technical progress Council Directive 1999/
36/EC on transportable pressure equipment (1), or, in any
event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
combustion plants and in any event by failing to com-
municate those measures
the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

to the Commission,

The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
1 January 2003.

(1) OJ 2002 L 149, p. 28.