Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case 520/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana): José Vicente Olaso Valero v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Scope — Definition of ‘claims’ — Definition of ‘pay’ — Compensation payable in the event of unfair dismissal)
Date: 2005-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, severance pay, unfair dismissal

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 September 2004

in Case C-516/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Environment — Waste
management — Campolungo (Ascoli Piceno) waste plant —
Directive 75/442/EEC amended by Directive 91/156/EEC —
Articles 4 and 8)

(First Chamber)

of 16 December 2004

in Case 520/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad
José Vicente Olaso Valero v Fondo de
Valenciana):

Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (1)

(Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of the
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Scope — Definition of ‘claims’ — Definition of ‘pay’ —
Compensation payable in the event of unfair dismissal)

(2005/C 45/18)

(2005/C 45/17)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-516/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: R. Amorosi and M. Konstantinidis) against
Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli)
– action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC,
brought on 9 December 2003 – the Court of Justice (Fifth
Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting as President of the
Fifth Chamber, R. Schintgen, J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C.
Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure
that the waste deposited in the Campolungo waste plant, situated
in the commune of Ascoli Piceno (Italy), is recovered or disposed
of without endangering human health and without using proce-
dures or methods which are likely to harm the environment, and
by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that any holder
of waste deposited in that waste plant has it handled by a private
or public collector or by an undertaking which carries out the
operations listed in Annex II A or B to Council Directive of 15
July 1975 on waste,
amended by Council Directive
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, or recovers or disposes of it
its obligations
himself, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
under Articles 4 and 8 of that directive.

as

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

In Case C-520/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la
Comunidad Valenciana (Spain), made by decision of 27
November 2003, received at the Court on 15 December 2003,
in the proceedings between José Vicente Olaso Valero and
(First
Fondo de Garantía Salarial
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K.
Lenaerts, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann and E. Juhász,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it has ruled
that:

(Fogasa) – the Court

law,

1. It falls to the national court to determine whether the word ‘pay’,
includes compensation for unfair
as defined by national
dismissal. If it does, such compensation falls within the ambit of
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
it was amended by Directive
employer, as
2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23
September 2002 amending Directive 80/987.

stood before

it

2. Where, according to the national legislation in question, claims
corresponding to compensation for unfair dismissal, awarded by
judgment or administrative decision, fall within the definition of
‘pay’, identical claims, established in a conciliation procedure such
as that in question in the circumstances of this case, must be
regarded as employees' claims arising from contracts of employ-
ment or employment relationships and as relating to pay for the
purposes of Directive 80/987. The national court must set aside
domestic legislation which, in breach of the principle of equality,
excludes the latter claims from the definition of ‘pay’ under that
legislation.

(1) OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.