Case C-52/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 17 December 2003 in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: humanisation of work, interpretation of the law, occupational safety, organisation of work, working time

C 94/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 17 December 2003
in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero
dell'Economia e delle Finanze

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Following the transfer of two fishing vessels to Argentina the
United Kingdom failed to withdraw the fishing licences for
those vessels. The aforementioned licences have been re-used
for other vessels.

The Commission takes the view that the permanent transfer of
a vessel to Argentina can be equated with permanent with-
drawal, as referred to in article 5 of Regulation 3690/93. It
therefore submits that the United Kingdom has contravened
the obligation incumbent upon it, laid down in the aforemen-
tioned article, to withdraw the fishing licences of vessels which
are subject to definitive withdrawal from fishing activities.

(1) OJ 1993 L 341, p. 93

(Case C-52/04)

(2004/C 94/41)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Federal Administrative Court) of 17 December 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 10 February 2004, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Aro Tubi Trafilerie S.p.A. against Ministero
dell'Economia e delle Finanze on the following question:

Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC (1) of 23
November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation
of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18), when read in the light
of Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June
1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improve-
ments in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L
183, p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that the firstmentioned
provision does not apply to the working time of the personnel
of a public fire service who carry out operational duties?

(1) OJ L 307, p. 18.

Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(Case C-65/04)

(2004/C 94/43)

(Case C-64/04)

(2004/C 94/42)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn
and B. Doherty, acting as agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the United Kingdom, by having failed to with-
draw the fishing licences of the fishing vessels known as
CLEOPATRA and OCEAN QUEST after their permanent
transfer to Argentina, has breached Article 5 of Regulation
(EC) 3690/93 (1) of 20 December 1993 establishing a Com-
munity system laying down rules for the minimum infor-
mation to be contained in fishing licences;

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 13 February 2004 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström
van Lier, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 5(3) of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom (1) of 27
November 1989 on informing the general public about
health protection measures to be applied and steps to be
taken in the event of a radiological emergency because of
the lack of prior information of the population likely to be
affected in the event of a radiological emergency,
in
connection with the local emergency plan existing in
Gibraltar; and