Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-191/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court): North Western Health Board v Margaret McKenna (Equal pay for men and women — Illness arising prior to maternity leave — Pregnancy-related illness — Person subject to the general sick-leave scheme — Effect on pay — Absence offset against the maximum total number of days of paid sick leave over a specified period)
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC Directive, equal treatment, incapacity for work, interpretation of the law, motherhood, occupational disease, occupational health, social-security benefit

C 281/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

Sixth Chamber

Mr La Pergola

Mr Puissochet

Mr von Bahr

Mr Borg Barthet

Mr Lõhmus

Mr Ó Caoimh

1. Declares that, in failing to take all of the measures necessary to
ensure a correct transposition and application of Council Directive
76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
the Community, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations
under Article 7 of that directive;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

Appointment of the First Advocate General

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(2005/C 281/03)

Pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the
Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice has appointed, for a
period of one year from 7 October 2005, Ms Stix-Hackl as
First Advocate General.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-282/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Water
pollution — Directive 76/464/EEC)

(2005/C 281/04)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-282/02, action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 31 July 2002, Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Ireland
(Agent: D.J. O'Hagan, assisted by A.M. Collins,
the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann, J.
Makarczyk and P. Kūris, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005,
in which it:

lawyer)

(Second Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-191/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Labour Court): North Western Health Board v
Margaret McKenna (1)

(Equal pay for men and women — Illness arising prior to
maternity leave — Pregnancy-related illness — Person
subject to the general sick-leave scheme — Effect on pay —
Absence offset against the maximum total number of days of
paid sick leave over a specified period)

(2005/C 281/05)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-191/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Labour Court (Ireland), made by deci-
sion of 14 April 2003, received at the Court on 12 May 2003,
in the proceedings pending before that court between North
Western Health Board and Margaret McKenna — the Court
(Second Chamber) composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and R.
Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Prin-
cipal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8
September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. A sick-leave

scheme which treats

identically female workers
suffering from a pregnancy-related illness and other workers
suffering from an illness that is unrelated to pregnancy comes
within the scope of Article 141 EC and Council Directive
75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the application of the prin-
ciple of equal pay for men and women.

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/3

2. Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 must be construed as
meaning that the following do not constitute discrimination on
grounds of sex:

— a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides,

in regard to
female workers absent prior to maternity leave by reason of an
illness related to their pregnancy, as also in regard to male
workers absent by reason of any other illness, for a reduction
in pay in the case where the absence exceeds a certain dura-
tion, provided that the female worker is treated in the same
way as a male worker who is absent on grounds of illness and
provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as
to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers;

— a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides for absences on
illness to be offset against a maximum total
grounds of
number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled
over a specified period, whether or not the illness is pregnancy-
related, provided that the offsetting of the absences on grounds
of a pregnancy-related illness does not have the effect that,
during the absence affected by that offsetting after the mater-
nity leave, the female worker receives pay that is lower than
the minimum amount to which she was entitled during the
illness which arose while she was pregnant.

(1) OJ C 158 of 05. 07. 2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-512/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) in J.E.J. Blanckaert v
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Onderne-
mingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)

(Direct taxation — Tax on income from savings and invest-
ments — Tax convention — Tax credits allowed only for
persons insured under the national social security system)

(2005/C 281/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

by decision of 4 December 2003, received at the Court on 8
December 2003, in the proceedings between J.E.J. Blanckaert
and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Onderne-
mingen buitenland te Heerlen — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, (Rapporteur) President of the Fourth
Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber, N.
Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a
law of a Member State under which a non-resident taxpayer who
receives income in that State only from savings and investments and
who is not insured under the social security system of that Member
State cannot claim entitlement to tax credits in respect of national
taxpayer who is insured under that
insurance, whereas a resident
social security system is entitled to those credits when his taxable
income is calculated, even if he receives only income of that same kind
and does not pay social security contributions.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-140/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen: United Antwerp Mari-
time Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport Terminals
NV v Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies
NV (1)

(Customs union — Creation of a customs debt on importa-
tion — Goods in temporary storage — Unlawful removal of
the goods from customs supervision — Person liable for the
debt)

(2005/C 281/07)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-512/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ('s-
Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands), made

In Case C-140/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
(Belgium), made by decision of 11 March 2004, received at the
Court on 16 March 2004, in the proceedings between United
Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport