Case C-211/04: Action brought on 12 May 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), designation of origin, labelling, preparation for market, product designation, viticulture

C 179/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

Action brought on 12 May 2004 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-211/04)

(2004/C 179/16)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 May 2004 by the Italian Republic, repre-
sented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorelli, Avvocato dello Stato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (1)
amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (2)
laying down
certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No
1493/1999 (3) as
the description, designation,
presentation and protection of certain wine sector products,
in particular as regards the amendment of Articles 24, 36
and 37 of Regulation No 753/2002 concerning the protec-
tion of traditional terms.

regards

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the regulation amending Regulation
No 753/2002 is vitiated by reason of:

— unlawful procedure for the adoption of the regulation on
the grounds of infringement of procedural rules and failure
to ensure the right to be heard effectively;

— failure to compare the interests of Community producers

with those of producers outside the Community;

— lack of power and infringement of the rules of the Council;

— infringement of Article 24(3) of the TRIPS agreement.

(1) OJ L 55 of 24.02.2004, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 118 of 04.05.2004, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 179 of 14.07.1999, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) by order of that court
of 8 April 2004 in the case of Konstantinos Adeler and
Others against Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos

(Case C-212/04)

(2004/C 179/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Monomeles Protodikio
pean Communities by order of

Thessalonikis of 8 April 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 17 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Konstantinos Adeler and Others against Ellinikos Organismos
Galaktos on the following questions:

1. Must a national court – as far as possible – interpret its
domestic law in accordance with a directive which was
transposed belatedly into its national legal system from (a)
the time when the directive entered into force, or (b) the
time when the time-limit for transposing it into national
law passed without transposition being effected, or (c) the
time when the national measure implementing it entered
into force?

2. Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-
term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which
constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC
(OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), mean that, in addition to reasons
connected with the nature, type or characteristics of the
work performed or other similar reasons, the fact solely and
simply that
is
required by a provision of
law or secondary legislation
constitutes an objective reason for continually renewing or
concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts?

the conclusion of a fixed-term contract

3. May Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on
fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP,
which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive
1999/70/EC (OJ 1999) L175, p. 43), be interpreted to the
effect that national provisions which lay down that fixed-
term employment contracts or
relationships are to be
regarded as successive only if a period of at most 20
working days separates them [must be disapplied] and,
further, that the presumption introduced in favour of the
worker that successive fixed-term employment contracts or
relationships should be recognised as of unlimited duration
must be applied in the above circumstances?

4. Is the prohibition, in Article 21 of Greek Law 2190/1994,
of
the conversion of successive fixed-term employment
contracts into contracts of unlimited duration, when those
contracts are said to have been concluded for a fixed term
to cover the exceptional or seasonal needs of the employer
but are aimed at covering its fixed and permanent needs,
compatible with the principle of effectiveness of Community
law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2) in conjunction
with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which consti-
tutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ
1999 L 175, p. 43)?