Case C-17/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, bonus payment, equal pay, gender equality, interpretation of the law, part-time employment, seniority, wage determination

C 69/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

Do Community rules concerning freedom of movement for workers
apply to the situation of a national of a non-member State married to
a Community national who has attended a vocational training course
and professional training in a Member State other than her own, and
may the non-Community spouse therefore be exempt from the require-
ment to obtain a work permit on the basis of rules guaranteeing to
Community nationals and members of their families who are non-
member country nationals the right
to freedom of movement as
workers?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo
Social No 33 by order of that court of 7 January 2005 in
the case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectivi-
dades SA

(Case C-13/05)

(2005/C 69/16)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social (Social
Court) No 33 (Spain) of 7 January 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Sonia Chacón Navas against Eurest Colectividades SA
on the following questions:

1. Does Directive 2000/78 (1),

in so far as Article 1 thereof
lays down a general framework for combating discrimina-
tion on the grounds of disability, include within its protec-
tive scope an employee who has been dismissed by her
employer solely because she is sick?

2. In the alternative,

if it should be concluded that sickness
does not fall within the protective framework which Direc-
tive 2000/78 lays down against discrimination on grounds
of disability and the first question is answered in the nega-
tive, can sickness be regarded as an identifying attribute in
addition to the ones in relation to which Directive 2000/78
prohibits discrimination?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
by order of that court dated 2 December 2004, in the case
of The Queen on the application of 1) Veli Tum and 2)
Mehmet Dari against Secretary of State for the Home
Department

(Case C-16/05)

(2005/C 69/17)

(Language of procedure: English)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the House of Lords, dated 2
December 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on
19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The
Queen on the application of 1) Veli Tum and 2) Mehmet Dari
against Secretary of State for the Home Department on the
following question:

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Association
Agreement signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 to be
interpreted as prohibiting a Member State from introducing
new restrictions, as from the date on which that Protocol
entered into force in that Member State, on the conditions of
and procedure for entry to its territory for a Turkish national
seeking to establish himself in business in that Member State?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
dated 11 January 2005, in the case of B.F. Cadman against
Health & Safety Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportu-
nities Commission

(Case C-17/05)

(2005/C 69/18)

(Language of procedure: English)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Court of Appeal (England &
Wales)
(Civil Division), dated 11 January 2005, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 January 2005, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of B.F. Cadman and Health & Safety
Executive, Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission on the
following questions:

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

1) Where the use by an employer of the criterion of length of
service as a determinant of pay has a disparate impact as
between relevant male and female employees, does Article
141 EC require the employer to provide special justification
for recourse to that criterion? If the answer depends on the
circumstances, what are those circumstances?

2) Would the answer to the preceding question be different if
the employer applies the criterion of length of service on an
individual basis to employees so that an assessment is made
as to the extent to which greater length of service justifies a
greater level of pay?

3) Is there any relevant distinction to be drawn between the
use of the criterion of length of service in the case of part-
time workers and the use of that criterion in the case of
full-time workers?

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on
1 December 2003.

(1) OJ L 302, 1.12.2000, p. 57.

Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

Appeal brought on 26 January 2005 (fax: 24 January 2005)
by August Storck KG against the judgment delivered on
10 November 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-396/
02 August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-21/05)

(2005/C 69/19)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case C-24/05 P)

(2005/C 69/20)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 January
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by N. Yerrell and A. Aresu, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning
the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working
Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the
Association of European Airlines
the European
Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit
Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Associa-
tion (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association
(IACA) (1), or in any event by not communicating the same
to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

(AEA),

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 November
2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-396/02 August Storck KG v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 26 January 2005 (fax: 24 January 2005)
by August Storck KG, represented by Ilse Rohr, Heidi Wrage-
Molkenthin and Tim Reher, Rechtsanwälte, CMS Hasche Sigle,
Stadthausbrücke 1-3, D-20355 Hamburg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth

Chamber) of 10 November 2004 in Case T-396/02; (1)

2. grant the forms of order sought at first instance and give
final judgment on the dispute or, in the alternative, remit
the case to the Court of First Instance;

3. order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.