Case C-319/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, labour law, organisation of work, provision of services, work contract, working conditions

C 224/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-316/06)

(2006/C 224/49)

(Case C-319/06)

(2006/C 224/50)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applican: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

The applicant claims that the Court should:

to ensure

IE40, Shanaganagh,

— declare that, by failing, in respect of discharges from the
agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34,
IE41, Sligo, and IE45,
Letterkenny,
Tramore County Waterford,
that, before
discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was
made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treat-
ment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing to
ensure that the said discharges satisfied the relevant require-
ments of Annex I.B of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of
30 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by
the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 4(1) and 4(3) of the said Directive.

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that
the Irish authorities are in
breach of their obligations to ensure that waste waters from
the agglomerations in questions are subject to secondary treat-
ment (or equivalent), as set out in Article 4 of the directive.

Although Ireland has offered explanations as to the delays
encountered in these agglomerations and has provided some
indications of the state of progress in meeting the directive's
requirements, it is the Commission's view that these explana-
tions and indications cannot be considered as excusing a failure
to meet the deadline fixed in Article 4(1), first indent, of the
directive. Moreover, the Commission submits that the informa-
tion provided by the Irish authorities is insufficient to allow it
to conclude that the installation of secondary waste-water treat-
ment plants in these agglomerations is imminent.
In most
stages need to be
cases,
completed before the treatment plants will be installed.

it appears

further

several

that

(1) OJ L 135 , P.40 - 52

Form of order sought

— Declare that,

(1) by declaring that subparagraphs 1, 2, 8 and 11 of
Article 1(1) of the Law of 20 December 2002 constitute
public policy provisions falling within ‘national public
policy’;

(2) by failing fully to transpose Article 3(1)(a) of Directive

96/71/EC (1) in Article 1(1)(3) of that Law;

(3) by setting out, in Article 7(1) of that Law, conditions
to guarantee legal

which are not sufficiently clear
certainty;

(4) by requiring, in Article 8 of that Law, that documents
necessary for controls be kept in Luxembourg in the
hands of an ad hoc agent resident there,

the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 3(1) and (10) of Directive 96/71/EC,
and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its first ground for complaint, the Commission complains,
essentially, that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg interprets too
widely the term ‘public policy provisions’ in the first indent of
Article 3(10) of Directive 96/71/EC. That complaint regards, in
particular: (1) the obligation imposed by the national legislature
to employ only employees with whom undertakings posting
workers to the Grand Duchy have concluded a written contract
of employment or prepared a document deemed to be similar
under Directive 91/533/EEC (2);
limitation
the automatic adjustment of pay to
period in respect of
the limitation period in
changes in the cost of
respect of rules governing part-time and fixed-term employ-
ment, and (4) the limitation period in respect of collective
labour agreements .

the national

living;

(2)

(3)

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/27

By its second complaint, the Commission complains that the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed fully to transpose Article
3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC in as much as the national legisla-
tion restricts the concept of ‘minimum rest periods’ to weekly
rest, excluding other rest periods such as daily rest or breaks.

By its third and fourth complaints, the Commission finally
pleads infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC attributable to
the obligation imposed on undertakings whose workers carry
on permanent or temporary activity in Luxembourg (1) to
make available to the Inspection du Travail et des Mines ‘before
the start of the works’, ‘at the mere request’ and ‘as quickly as
possible’ the particulars necessary for a control, and (2) to
designate an ‘ad hoc’ agent resident in Luxembourg responsible
for keeping the documents necessary for monitoring the obliga-
tions on those undertakings.

(1) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the
framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employ-
er's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to
the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).

(a) annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28
November 2003 replying to the complaint brought by
Mr Kallianos under No R/335/03 of 2 July 2003;

(b) call upon the Commission to repay to the appellant the
whole of the payments and amounts it unjustifiably
withheld in respect of the remuneration payable to the
appellant from the date on which he was granted a
divorce by judgment of the Court of First Instance,
Athens, on 8 March 1999, including indexation of the
amount overpaid by way of maintenance pursuant to
the unilateral decision of 18 September 2002 adopted
by the Commission, together with interest at the statu-
tory rate from the date when amounts were first with-
held from the appellant's monthly salary;

including the costs of

(c) order the Commission to pay the costs of effecting
service,
translating the Greek
judgments into French, documents which were in any
event made available to the Commission in good time,
amounting to EUR 1 500,
together with the costs
incurred by the appellant as a result of being obliged to
deal
repeatedly with the Commission's arguments,
assessed at 20 % of the sum ordered to be paid in the
order for costs or other such sum as the Court deems
equitable;

(d) order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay all of the costs incurred in the proceedings before
the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

Appeal brought on 21 July 2006 by Theodoros Kallianos
against the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) on 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04
Kallianos v Commission

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-323/06 P)

(2006/C 224/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Theodoros Kallianos (represented by: G. Archam-
beau, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04
Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities in all
material respects and, by doing what the Court of First
Instance of the E. C. ought to have done:

By his appeal, the appellant maintains, firstly, that the Com-
munity institutions lack competence to act in the place of the
Member States or to interpret their national law in the context
of divorce proceedings.

Secondly, the appellant challenges the argument that the effect
of a divorce decree is not automatically to terminate interim
measures ordered by a court in interlocutory proceedings and
that such a decree must be served by writ by a court officer on
the Commission in order that the latter may,
in particular,
consider itself released from its obligation to make deductions
from the salary of one spouse (an official) for the benefit of the
other spouse. In that regard, the appellant submits, in essence,
that the Commission is not a third party seised of the matter or
an ordinary employer, given that, under the Staff Regulations,
all officials are under an obligation to provide information and
to be transparent with regard to their personal circumstances.
He also argues that an order awarding maintenance to a spouse
in the course of divorce proceedings is automatically termi-
nated on pronouncement of decree absolute and that it is there-
fore sufficient that the Commission is simply aware of that
decree for the maintenance obligations to cease without there
being any need for such a decree to be served by writ by a
court officer.