Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid system, aid to agriculture, area of holding, management information system, national implementing measure, national production

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-313/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Nicole Wippel v Peek & Clop-
penburg GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Directive 97/81/EC — Directive 76/207/EEC — Social
policy — Equal treatment as between part-time and full-time
workers — Equal treatment as between male and female
workers — Working hours and organisation of working-
time)

(2004/C 300/21)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-313/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC, from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made
the Court on 5
by order of 8 August 2002, received at
September 2002,
in the proceedings between Nicole Wippel
and Peek & Cloppenburg GmbH & Co. KG, — the Court
(Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and
K.
Puissochet,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
and K. Schiemann, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F.
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

of Chambers,

Presidents

Lenaerts,

J.-P.

— in regard to part-time workers working on a casual basis, the
Member State has not excluded them, wholly or partly, from
the benefit of the terms of that agreement.

2. Clause 4 of

the Framework Agreement annexed to Directive
97/81 and Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 must be
interpreted as meaning that:

— they do not preclude a provision, such as Paragraph 3 of the
Arbeitszeitgesetz (Law on working time), which lays down a
basic maximum working time of 40 hours per week and eight
hours per day, and which thus also regulates maximum
working time and the organisation of working time in regard
to both full-time and part-time workers;

— in circumstances where all the contracts of employment of the
other employees of an undertaking make provision for the
length of weekly working time and for the organisation of
working time, they do not preclude a contract of part-time
employment of workers of the same undertaking, such as that
in the main proceedings, under which the length of weekly
working time and the organisation of working time are not
fixed but are dependent on quantitative needs in terms of work
to be performed determined on a case-by-case basis, such
workers being entitled to accept or refuse that work.

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

1. A worker with a contract of employment, such as that in the main
proceedings, under which hours of work and the organisation of
working time are dependent upon the quantity of available work
and are determined only on a case-by-case basis by agreement
between the parties, comes within the scope of Council Directive
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access
to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
conditions.

Such workers also come within the scope of the Framework Agree-
ment annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December
1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work
concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC where:

in Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities against the Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Agriculture — Regulation
(EEC) No 3508/92 — Integrated administration and control
system for certain Community aid schemes)

(2004/C 300/22)

(Language of the case: Greek)

— they have a contract or employment relationship as defined by
the law, collective agreement or practices in force in the
Member State;

— they are employees whose normal working hours, calculated on
a weekly basis or on average over an employment period which
may be up to a year, are less than those of a comparable full-
time worker within the meaning of Clause 3(2) of that frame-
work agreement, and

In Case C-328/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v the Hellenic Republic (Agents:
V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalias) — action under Article 226 EC
for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 September 2002
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President
J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken (Rapporteur),
of
J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advocate General: P.
Léger, Registrar: L. Hewlett, has given a judgment on 12
October 2004, in which it:

the Chamber,

C 300/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.12.2004

1) Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary
completely
Article 2(a) and (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of
27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration
and control
the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
regulation.

certain Community aid schemes,

to implement

system for

2) Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3) Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

munity plant variety right
to request a supplier of processing
services to provide the information specified in those provisions
where the holder has no indication that the latter has processed or
intends to process the product of the harvest obtained by farmers
by planting propagating material of a variety belonging to the
holder, other than a hybrid or synthetic variety, which is covered
by that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species
listed in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94, for planting.

2. The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 in
conjunction with Article 9 of Regulation No 1768/95 must be
interpreted as meaning that, where the holder has some indication
that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to
process the product of the harvest obtained by farmers by planting
propagating material of a variety belonging to the holder, other
than a hybrid or synthetic variety, which is covered by a Com-
munity plant variety right and belongs to one of the agricultural
plant species listed in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94,
for planting, the processor is required to provide him with the rele-
vant information relating not only to the farmers for whom the
holder has some indication that the processor has provided or
intends to provide such services but also to all other farmers for
whom he has processed or intends to process the product of the
harvest obtained by planting propagating material of the variety
concerned, where that variety has been declared or is otherwise
known to him.

in Case C-336/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Düsseldorf): Saatgut-Treuhandverwal-
tungsgesellschaft mbH v Brangewitz GmbH (1)

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

(Plant varieties — System of protection — Article 14(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 9 of Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95 — Use by farmers of the product of the
harvest — Suppliers of processing services — Obligation to
provide information to the holder of the Community right)

(2004/C 300/23)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-336/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany),
made by decision of 8 August 2002, received at the Court on
23 September 2002, in the proceedings between Saatgut-Treu-
handverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Brangewitz GmbH —
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S.
von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004,
in which it has ruled:

1. The sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No
2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights in
conjunction with Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural
exemption provided for
in Article 14(3) of Regulation No
2100/94 cannot be interpreted as allowing the holder of a Com-

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 October 2004

in Case C-340/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/50/EEC — Procedure for the award of public service
contracts — Assistance to the maître d'ouvrage for a sewage
treatment plant — Award to the successful candidate in an
earlier design contest without prior publication of a contract
notice in the OJEC)

(2004/C 300/24)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-340/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 24 September 2002, between