Case C-342/05: Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental law, hunting regulations, protection of animal life, wild mammal

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.

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/11

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
under the EC Treaty and Directive 2001/37/EC;

its obligations

Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC is an exception to the
system of the strict protection of species in Article 12, so that
it must be interpreted strictly. Article 12(1)
lays down two
preconditions for derogating on the basis of points (a) to (e).
First, the derogation must not be detrimental to the mainte-
nance of the populations of the species concerned at a favour-
able conservation status in their natural range. Second, a dero-
gation is possible only where there is no other satisfactory solu-
tion.

Since the level of protection of the wolf is not favourable in
Finland and other alternative methods are available, and since
permits for hunting wolves are regularly issued without there
being a properly ascertained connection with individuals
causing particularly significant damage, the hunting of wolves
is permitted in Finland to an extent which exceeds the condi-
tions laid down in Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The list in Annex II to Directive 2001/37/EC mentions Direc-
tive 92/41/EEC and the time-limit for transposing its provisions
In the case of
legislation was 1 July 1992.
into national
Finland,
for transposing the provisions into
national legislation based on Finland's accession was 1 January
1995, even though it must be stated that compliance with the
directive was already mandatory for Finland from 1 January
1994 under the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

the time-limit

(1) Directive 2001/37/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regula-
States
tions
concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of
tobacco
products, OJ L 194 of 18.7.2001, p. 26.

and administrative provisions of

the Member

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

(Case C-343/05)

(2005/C 281/20)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

Appeal brought on 21 September 2005 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities against the judgment
delivered on 12 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-157/
04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-344/05 P)

(2005/C 281/21)

(Language of the case: French)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 19
September 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by L. Pignataro Nolin and M. Huttunen,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that:

Instance of

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2005 by
the Court of First
the European Communities
(single judge) in Case T-157/04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 21 September 2005 by the
Commission of
the European Communities, represented by
Lidia Lozano Palacios and Hannes Kraemer, acting as Agents.

by not ensuring that Ahvenanmaa (Åland) has transposed
into its legislation Article 8a of Directive 89/622/EEC,
which was added by Directive 92/41/EC and is contained in
Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC, (1) and

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal

by not enduring that the prohibition in the abovementioned
Community provisions of marketing nuuska (oral tobacco)
is complied with on vessels registered in Finland,

— pass final

judgment on the dispute, allowing the claims
submitted by the defendant at first instance and, conse-
quently, dismissing the application in Case T-157/04;