Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  22 November 2005  in Case C-144/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht München Werner Mangold v Rüdiger Helm (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 6 — Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation — Age discrimination)
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, framework agreement, interpretation of the law, population of working age, temporary employment, working time

C 36/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

Bethell, assisted by Lord Goldsmith QC, N. Paines QC and T.
Ward, Barrister) v European Parliament (Agents: K. Bradley and
M. Moore), Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims, E.
Karlsson and F. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by: Commission
J.-P. Keppenne, N.
of
the European Communities (Agents:
Yerrell and M. Shotter) — the Court
(Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, A. Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, S.
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta
von Bahr,
(Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, A. Borg Barthet
and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; K. Sztranc,
Administrator,
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6
December 2005, in which it:

for

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its

own costs.

(1) OJ C 94 of 17. 04. 2004.

gave a judgment on 24 November 2005, the operative part of
which is as follows:

Cheese exported in 1990 which, by its nature, is intended for proces-
sing in a third country may be covered by an export refund under
Article 17(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27
June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and
milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No
3904/87 of 22 December 1987, provided that it is classified, taking
account of its type and composition, under one of the product codes in
the annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1706/89 of 15 June
1989 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, as defined
by the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds annexed
to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3445/89 of 15 November
1989 establishing the full version, applicable from 1 January 1990,
of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds.

(1) OJ C 118 of 30. 04. 2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 22 November 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Case C-136/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Deutsches Milch-Kontor
GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

(Export refunds — Regulations (EEC) Nos 804/68, 1706/89
and 3445/89 — Cheeses intended for processing in a third
country)

(2006/C 36/17)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-136/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 3 February 2004, received at the Court on 15
March 2004,
in the proceedings pending before that court
between Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH and Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of J.
Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and R.
Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur),
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro,
Advocate General, B. Fülöp, Administrator, for the Registrar,

in Case C-144/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht München Werner Mangold v Rüdiger
Helm (1)

(Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Frame-
work Agreement
fixed-term work — Directive
2000/78/EC — Article 6 — Equal treatment as regards
employment and occupation — Age discrimination)

on

(2006/C 36/18)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-144/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht München (Germany),
made by decision of 26 February 2004, received at the Court
on 17 March 2004,
in the proceedings pending before that
court between Werner Mangold and Rüdiger Helm — the
Court: (Grand Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the
First Chamber, acting as President, C.W.A. Timmermans, A.
Rosas and K. Schiemann, Presidents of Chambers, and R.
Schintgen (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R.
Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg
Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K.
Sztranc, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 November
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/11

1. On a proper construction of Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agree-
ment on fixed-term contracts concluded on 18 March 1999, put
into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999
concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded
by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, domestic legislation such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, which for reasons connected with
the need to encourage employment and irrespective of the imple-
mentation of that agreement, has lowered the age above which
fixed-term contracts of employment may be concluded without
restrictions, is not contrary to that provision.

2. Community law and, more particularly, Article 6(1) of Council
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion must be interpreted as precluding a provision of domestic law
such as that at issue in the main proceedings which authorises,
without restriction, unless there is a close connection with an
indefinite duration concluded
earlier contract of employment of
with the same employer, the conclusion of fixed-term contracts of
employment once the worker has reached the age of 52.

It is the responsibility of the national court to guarantee the full
effectiveness of
the general principle of non-discrimination in
respect of age, setting aside any provision of national law which
may
the period
prescribed for transposition of that directive has not yet expired.

conflict with Community

even where

law,

Genova (Italy), made by decision of 11 February 2004, received
at the Court on 23 March 2004, in the proceedings between
Unicredito Italiano SpA and Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio
(Second Chamber), composed of
Genova 1 — the Court
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; C.
Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Adminis-
trator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1. Examination of

the questions

referred has disclosed nothing
capable
of Commission Decision
validity
2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for
banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy;

affecting the

of

2. Article 87 et seq. EC, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, and the principles of
legal certainty, proportionality and the protection of
legitimate
expectations cannot preclude a national measure ordering repay-
ment of aid in compliance with a Commission decision which
found that aid to be incompatible with the common market and
examination of which in the light of those provisions and general
principles has not disclosed any factor capable of affecting its
validity.

(1) JO C 146 of 29.5.2004.

(1) OJ C 118 of 30.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-148/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova)
Unicredito Italiano SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio
Genova 1 (1)

(State aid — Decision 2002/581/EC — Tax advantages
granted to banks — Statement of reasons for a decision —
Categorisation as State aid — Conditions — Compatibility
with the common market — Conditions — Article 87(3)(b)
and (c) EC — Important project of common European interest
— Development of certain activities — Tax advantages
granted previously — Recovery of the aid — Principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of legal
certainty — Principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 36/19)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-148/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di

in Joined Cases C-187/04 and C-188/04: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Public works conces-
sions — Rules on advertising)

(2006/C 36/20)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Joined Cases C-187/04 and C-188/04 Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner, Lawyer: G.
Bambara) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, Lawyer: M.
Fiorilli) — two actions under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil
obligations, brought on 22 April 2004 — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of C.W.A Timmermans, President of the
Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P.
Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October
2005, in which it: