Case C-460/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 November 2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: care of mothers and infants, dismissal, female work, interpretation of the law, job security, motherhood, occupational health, occupational safety

C 326/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Question referred

Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance
infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by
considering that the contested decision of the Commission did
not constitute a decision against which an action may be
brought within the meaning of Article 230 EC.

In Finland's view, the contested decision of the Commission
constitutes a decision against which an action may be brought
within the meaning of Article 230. By its decision the Commis-
sion in fact denied Finland the opportunity to make a condi-
tional payment within the meaning of the case-law of the Court
of Justice.

The contested decision thus has binding legal effects on Finland,
as required in the case-law on the application of Article 230 EC,
which affect Finland's interests and clearly change Finland's legal
position. The contested decision also caused Finland a loss of
rights and is thus clearly adverse to Finland.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance made several
errors of law in assessing the case and as a result reached a deci-
sion contrary to Community law.

Is the alcohol contained in cooking wine to be classified as ethyl
alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Council
Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation
of
the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic
beverages? (1)

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)
lodged on 17 November
2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet +
Minne SPRL

(Case C-460/06)

(2006/C 326/90)

Language of the case: French

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regerings-
rätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v
Gourmet Classic Ltd

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Referring court

(Case C-458/06)

(2006/C 326/89)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nadine Paquay

Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Gourmet Classic Ltd

Questions referred

1. Must Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19
October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant
workers (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) be interpreted as
only prohibiting the notification of a decision of dismissal
during the period of protection referred to in paragraph 1 of
that article or does it also prohibit taking a decision of
dismissal and attempting to find a permanent replacement
for the employee before the end of the period of protection?

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/45

2. Is dismissal notified after the period of protection provided
for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, but which is not unre-
lated to the pregnancy and/or the birth of a child, contrary
to Article 2(1)
(or 5(1)) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9
February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment,
and
training
working conditions (2), and, in such a case, must the sanction
be at least equivalent to that laid down by national law in
execution of Article 10 of Directive 92/85?

and promotion,

vocational

(1) OJ L 348, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 39, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 18 November 2006 by Elliniki Etairia
pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (AEPI).
against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) made on 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05
AEPI v Commission

(Case C-461/06P)

(2006/C 326/91)

Language of the case: Greek

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds of the appeal are:

the European Communities without

(a) The decision under appeal dismissed the application and
accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commis-
sion of
taking into
account the individual right to legal protection which arises
in every case in which a citizen brings a case before a court;
his case must be judged in its entirety and to its full extent
and the decision handed down must contain sufficient and
lawful reasons.

(b) Although it is accepted that in matters of infringement of
the competition rules the Commission of
the European
Communities is recognized as having discretion as to the
action it will take, nevertheless the decision under appeal
did not examine whether the Commission remained within
the permissible limits of its discretion or exceeded those
limits, given the fact that in any event no administrative
service is allowed to act ultra vires.

(c) It was wholly impermissible for the decision under appeal
to accept that the Commission of the European Commu-
nities may act without any supervision in the area of infrin-
gement of the principles of competition and, if it is called to
account for its actions, is able to avoid doing so by simply
raising a plea of inadmissibility.

Parties

Appellant: Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idiokti-
sias (AEPI) AE (represented by: Theodoros K. Asprogerakas-
Grivas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (France) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Glaxos-
mithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre
Rouard

(Case C-462/06)

(2006/C 326/92)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— hold the appeal admissible;

— set aside the contested order No 303852 of 5 September
the European
in Case T-242/05 in its

2006 of
Communities (Fourth Chamber)
entirety;

the Court of First

Instance of

Referring court

Cour de cassation

— hear and determine our action of 4 June 2005 (pursuant to
Article 230 of the EU Treaty) before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities itself, or send it back
in
to the Court which issued the decision under appeal
order for it to be held admissible on the grounds specified.

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Glaxosmithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

Respondent: Jean-Pierre Rouard