Case C-81/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Anacleto Cordero Alonso v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Amending Directive 2002/74/EC — Compensation for dismissal agreed during conciliation — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, labour law, national implementing measure, primacy of EU law, social security, work contract

C 261/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-
tungsgericht Sigmaringen, Germany) — Alexander Jehle,
Weinhaus Kiderlen v Land Baden-Württemberg

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) —
Anacleto Cordero Alonso v Fondo de Garantía Salarial
(Fogasa)

(Case C-489/04) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 — First paragraph of
Article 2 — Olive oil and olive-pomace oil — Marketing
trade — Presentation to the final
standards — Retail

consumer — So-called ‘bag in the box’ method)

(2006/C 261/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-81/05) (1)

(Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of the
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Amending Directive 2002/74/EC — Compensation for
dismissal agreed during conciliation — Payment guaranteed
by the guarantee institution — Payment subject to the adop-
tion of a judicial decision)

(2006/C 261/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

Applicants: Alexander Jehle, Weinhaus Kiderlen

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Applicant: Anacleto Cordero Alonso

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Inter-
pretation of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing
standards for olive oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27) — Presentation
of olive oils and olive-pomace oils to final consumers in pre-
sealed packaging having a maximum capacity of five litres —
Possibility of selling olive oil which is presented in a five-litre
‘Bag in the Box’ and which consumers draw off in smaller
amounts within the shop

Operative part of the judgment

1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002
on marketing standards for olive oil, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003 of 1 July 2003, and in particu-
lar the first paragraph of Article 2 thereof, must be construed as
meaning that olive oils and olive-pomace oils may be presented to
the final consumer only in packaging which complies with the
requirements laid down by that provision.

2. The first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation No 1019/2002,
as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003, must be
construed as prohibiting a method of marketing, such as that used
by the applicant in the main proceedings, which does not meet the
conditions laid down by that provision.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.

Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de
Justicia de Castilla y León — Interpretation of Council Directive
80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the
laws of
the Member States relating to the protection of
employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ
1980 L 283, p. 23), amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002
(OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Articles 1 and 3 — Application of
Community law — Primacy — Protection of workers already
law — Time-limit for transposing the
conferred by national
relevant directive not yet expired — Interpretation by the
Court of Justice not the same as that by the Spanish Constitu-
tional Court — Equal treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Where, before the entry into force of Directive 2002/74/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002
amending Directive 80/987/EEC, a Member State has already
conferred on employees a statutory entitlement to protection by a
guarantee institution in the event of an employer's insolvency with
regard to compensation for termination of the contract of employ-
ment, the application of that legislation to cases where the employ-
er's insolvency occurred after the entry into force of that directive
falls within the scope of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20
October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the
insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74.

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/5

2. Within the scope of Directive 80/987, as amended, the general
principle of equality, as recognised in the Community legal order,
requires that when, under national rules such as those at issue in
the main proceedings, statutory compensation payable on termina-
tion of an employment contract and fixed in a judgment
is
payable by a guarantee institution in the event of an employer's
insolvency, compensation of the same nature, fixed in an agree-
ment between the employee and the employer which was entered
into under the supervision and with the approval of a court, must
be treated in the same way.

3. The national court must disapply a national rule which, in breach
of the principle of equality as recognised in the Community legal
order, precludes the payment by the competent guarantee institu-
tion of compensation on termination of a contract fixed in an
agreement between the employee and the employer which was
entered into under the supervision of and with the approval of a
court.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre
Landsret, Denmark) — VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen,
acting on behalf of Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk
Motor Co. A/S

(Case C-125/05) (1)

(Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor
vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95
— Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Entry into
force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Requirement to
reorganise the distribution network — Period of notice —
Statement of reasons — Burden of proof)

(2006/C 261/08)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting on behalf of
Vulcan Silkeborg A/S

Defendant: Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Inter-
pretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3)
of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution
and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 25) — Termina-

tion of the agreement by the supplier in a case where it is
necessary to reorganise the whole or a substantial part of the
network — Obligation to state reasons and extent of such an
obligation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

The first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of
the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servi-
cing agreements is to be interpreted as meaning that:

the network’

— in order for it to be ‘necessary to reorganise the whole or a
substantial part of
there must be a significant
change, both substantively and geographically, to the distribution
structures of the supplier concerned, which must be convincingly
justified on grounds of economic effectiveness based on objective
circumstances internal or external to the supplier's undertaking
which, failing a swift reorganisation of the distribution network,
would be liable, having regard to the competitive environment in
which the supplier carries on business, to prejudice the effectiveness
of the existing structures of the network. Any adverse economic
consequences which would be liable to affect a supplier in the
event that it were to terminate the distribution agreement with a
two years' notice period are relevant in that regard. It is for the
national courts and arbitrators to determine, having regard to all
the evidence in the case before them, whether those conditions are
satisfied.

— where the validity of a termination with one year's notice is chal-
is for the
lenged before the national courts or arbitrators,
supplier to prove that the conditions laid down under that provi-
sion for the exercise of the right to terminate on one year's notice
are satisfied. The procedure for establishing such proof is a matter
for national law.

it

— it does not require a supplier which terminates a distribution
agreement pursuant to that provision to provide a formal state-
ment of the reasons for the decision to terminate nor does it
require the supplier to draw up a reorganisation plan prior to
taking such a decision.

— the

entry

into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3)
of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices in the motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the
reorganisation of the distribution network of a supplier within the
meaning of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Regulation No
1475/95. However, that entry into force may, in the light of the
particular nature of the distribution network of each supplier, have
required changes that were so significant that they must be truly
considered as representing a reorganisation within the meaning of
that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to deter-
in the light of all the evidence in the case before them,
mine,
whether that is the position.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.