Case C-341/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen by order of that court of 15 September 2005 in Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, collective agreement, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, trade union, trade union rights

C 281/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

Must a Member State or one of a Member State's regional or
local authorities take account, when calculating the remunera-
tion of contractual public servants, of periods of employment
in certain institutions in Switzerland, which are comparable to
institutions listed in Paragraph 41(2) of the Tiroler Landesver-
tragsbedienstetengesetz (Law of
the Province of Tyrol on
Contractual Public Servants) (or, in the alternative, of Paragraph
26(2) of the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948 (Federal Law on
Contractual Public Servants of 1948)) without temporal limitation,
or is the Agreement between the European Community and its
Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation,
of the other, on the free movement of persons (OJ 2002 L
114), in particular Article 9(1) of Annex I thereto, rather to be
interpreted as meaning that it is permissible to take account only
of periods of employment by contractual public servants in
Switzerland after the entry into force of that agreement on 1 June
2002?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdom-
stolen by order of that court of 15 September 2005 in
Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareför-
bundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareför-
bundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet

(Case C-341/05)

(2005/C 281/18)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

no express provisions concerning the application of terms
and conditions of employment in collective agreements?

2. The Swedish Medbestämmandelagen (Law on workers' parti-
cipation in decisions) prohibits industrial action taken with
the intention of circumventing a collective agreement
concluded by other parties. That prohibition applies,
however, pursuant to a special provision contained in part
of the law known as the ‘lex Britannia’, only where a trade
union takes measures in respect of industrial relations to
which the Medbestämmandelagen is directly applicable,
which means in practice that the prohibition is not applic-
able to industrial action against a foreign undertaking which
is temporarily active in Sweden and which brings its own
workforce. Do the rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom to
provide services and the prohibition on discrimination on
grounds of nationality and the provisions of Directive 96/71
constitute an obstacle to an application of the latter rule —
which, together with other parts of the lex Britannia also
mean in practice that Swedish collective agreements become
applicable and take precedence over foreign collective agree-
ments already concluded — to industrial action in the form
of a blockade taken by Swedish trade unions against a
foreign temporary provider of services in Sweden?

Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-342/05)

(2005/C 281/19)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

received at

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Arbetsdomstolen of 15
September 2005,
the Court Registry on 19
September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Laval un Partneri Ltd and Svenska Byggnadsarbetare-
förbundet, Avdelning 1 of the Svenska Byggnadsarbetareför-
bundet, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet on the following ques-
tions:

the European Parliament and of

1. Is it compatible with rules of the EC Treaty on the freedom
to provide services and the prohibition of discrimination on
the grounds of nationality and with the provisions of Direc-
tive 96/71/EC of
the
Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of
workers in the framework of the provision of services for
trade unions to attempt, by means of industrial action in the
form of a blockade, to force a foreign temporary provider of
services in the host country to sign a collective agreement
in respect of terms and conditions of employment such as
that set out in the above-mentioned decision of the Arbets-
domstolen, if the situation in the host country is such that
the legislation intended to implement Directive 96/71 has

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the European Communities on 19
the Court of
September 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by M. van Beek and I. Koskinen, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by regularly permitting the hunting of wolves
contrary to the principles for derogations laid down in
Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1) of the direc-
tive;

2. order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.