Case C-100/04: Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air quality, environmental protection, environmental standard, eutrophication, pollution control, public health

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/29

and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration
of waste, or, in any event, by failing to communicate them
to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 21 of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 28
December 2002.

— Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/81/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings
for certain atmospheric pollutants, or by not communi-
the Italian
cating those provisions to the Commission,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15
of that directive;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on
27 November 2002.

(1) OJ 2001 L 316 of 1.12.2001, p. 5.

Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-99/04)

(2004/C 94/64)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrecht-
bank Gent by order of that Court of 17 February 2004 in
the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor
Pensionen

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regula-
tions 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, or, in any event, by failing to communi-
cate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 18(1) of that
directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 27
November 2002.

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

Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-100/04)

(2004/C 94/65)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-101/04)

(2004/C 94/66)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Arbeidsrechtbank Gent
(Ghent Labour Court) of 17 February 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 26 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Roger Noteboom against Rijksdienst voor
Pensionen on the following questions:

1. Does holiday pay within the meaning of Article 22 of Royal
Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the
Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 fall within the scope
ratione materiae of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and more
specifically does it constitute an ‘old-age benefit’ within the
meaning of Article 4(1)(c) thereof?

2. Are Articles 45(1) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be
interpreted as meaning that the RVP must, as the competent
institution, take account of insurance periods completed in
another Member State in determining entitlement to holiday
pay?

3. If the second question is answered in the negative, does the
requirement in Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71
that the benefit is to be determined in accordance with the
provisions of the legislation of the Member State in whose
territory the frontier worker resides ‘as though he had been
subject to that legislation while last employed’ apply only to
unemployment benefit or also to other benefits such as, in
particular, holiday pay as referred to in Article 22 of Royal
Decree No 50 of 24 October 1967 and Article 56 of the
Royal Decree of 21 December 1967?

(1) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) P. 0416