Case C-12/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2008 — Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation v Dervis Odemis, Marc Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle Marra, Youssef Belkaid, Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert, Richard Toussaint, Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli, Khalid Zari, Isabelle Longaretti, Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx, Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti, Alberto D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe Montaperto
Date: 2008-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, collective dismissal, interpretation of the law, labour law, legal action, worker consultation, worker information

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/17

According to the Finnish Autoverolaki, the value of cars under
three months old which are in use is not reduced and they are
taxed as new vehicles. The value of a vehicle begins to go down
from the moment the vehicle is purchased or brought into use.
The taxation of used cars under three months old at the same
level as new cars is contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty. The
provisions of the Autoverolaki also infringe Article 90 of the
EC Treaty because they apply a scale to cars between 3 and
6 months of age according to which the value of a car decreases
by 0,8 % per month in circumstances where it has not been
established that there are any similar vehicles on the Finnish
market, because using that scale for a linear reduction in value
of 0,8 % there is no guarantee that the amount of tax charge-
able does not exceed in any circumstances the amount of resi-
dual tax included in the value of similar vehicles already regis-
tered in Finland.

(1) Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
the laws of
taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

the Member States relating to turnover

(2) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti, Alberto
D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe Montaperto

Questions referred

1. Should Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July
1998 on the approximation of
the Member
States relating to collective redundancies (1), which provides
that:

the laws of

‘Member States shall ensure that
judicial and/or administrative
procedures for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive
are available to the workers' representatives and/or workers’,

be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such
as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures
in so far as it provides that a
in favour of employment,
worker can no longer challenge compliance with the proce-
dure for informing and consulting,

— except on the ground that

complied with
Article 66(1)(ii) of that law,

the

the employer has not
in

referred

to

conditions

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail
de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2008 — Mono
Car Styling SA,
in liquidation v Dervis Odemis, Marc
Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle Marra, Youssef Belkaid,
Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert, Richard Toussaint,
Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli, Khalid Zari,
Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx,
Isabelle
Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti,
Alberto D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe
Montaperto

Longaretti,

(Case C-12/08)

(2008/C 79/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation

Defendants: Dervis Odemis, Marc Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle
Marra, Youssef Belkaid, Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert,
Richard Toussaint, Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli,
Khalid Zari, Isabelle Longaretti, Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx,

— and to the extent that the staff representatives within the
Works Council or, where no such council exists, the
members of the union delegation or, where no such dele-
gation exists, those workers who should be informed and
consulted, have notified the employer of objections,
in
respect of compliance with one or more of the condi-
tions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) within 30 days of the
display referred to in the second subparagraph of
Article 66(2),

— and where the worker made redundant has informed the
employer,
in a letter sent by recorded delivery [within
30 days from the date of redundancy] or from the date
on which the redundancies acquired their status as collec-
tive redundancies, that he was challenging compliance
with the procedure for informing and consulting and he
was seeking to be reinstated in his post?

the laws of

2. Assuming that Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of
the
20 July 1998 on the approximation of
Member States relating to collective redundancies may be
interpreted as allowing Member States to adopt provisions of
national law such as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February
1998 on measures in favour of employment, in so far as it
provides that a worker made redundant can no longer chal-
lenge compliance with the procedure for informing and
consulting except on the ground that the employer has not
fulfilled the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) of that
law, and to the extent that staff representatives within the
Works Council or, where no such council exists,
the
members of the union delegation or, where no such delega-
the workers who should be informed and
tion exists,
consulted, have notified the employer of objections
in
respect of compliance with one or more of the conditions
referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) within a period of 30 days
from the display referred to in the second subparagraph of
Article 66(2) and where the worker made redundant has

C 79/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.3.2008

informed the employer, in a letter sent by recorded delivery
within 30 days from the date of redundancy or from the
date on which the redundancies acquired their status as
collective redundancies, that he was challenging compliance
with the procedure for informing and consulting and he was
seeking to be reinstated in his post,

is such a system compatible with the fundamental rights of
the individual which form an integral part of the general
principles of
law — respect for which is ensured by the
Community judicature — and more particularly with
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

3. Can a national court seised of a dispute between two indivi-
duals — in the present case a worker and his former
employer — disapply a provision of national law which is
contrary to the provisions of a Community directive, such as
Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in
favour of employment, in order to give effect to other provi-
sions of national law which transpose, apparently correctly, a
Community directive, such as the provisions contained in
Collective Labour Agreement No 24 of 2 October 1975,
made compulsory by Royal Decree of 21 January 1976, but
whose effective application is frustrated by the provision of
national law which is contrary to a Community directive, in
the present case Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998;

(2) Must that same provision be interpreted as precluding a
provision of national law, such as Article 67(2) of the
Law of 13 February 1998 on measures in favour of
employment, in so far as it provides that a worker made
redundant can challenge compliance with the procedure
for informing and consulting only on the ground that
the employer has not complied with the conditions
referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) at issue in point 1 above?

(1) OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

17

2008

January

brought on

Appeal
by MPDV
Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und
Mikroprozessorlabor against the judgment of the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 8 Novem-
ber 2007 in Case T-459/05 MPDV Mikrolab GmbH,
Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v
(Trade
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Marks and Designs)

(Case C-17/08 P)

(2008/C 79/31)

Language of the case: German

4. (1) Must Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July
1998, particularly paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) thereof, be
interpreted as precluding a provision of national
law,
such as Article 66(1) of the Law of 13 February 1998
on measures in favour of employment,
in so far as it
provides that an employer who intends to satisfy his
obligations in the context of collective redundancies is
only bound to provide evidence that he has fulfilled the
following conditions:

Parties

1. he must present to the Works Council or, where no
such council exists, to the union delegation or, where
no such delegation exists, to the workers, a written
report in which he indicates his intention to proceed
with collective redundancies;

2. he must be able to provide evidence, in respect of the
intention to proceed with collective redundancies,
that he has assembled the Works Council or, where
no such council exists, that he has met with the
union delegation or, where no such delegation exists,
with the workers;

3. he must have allowed the staff representatives within
the Works Council or, where no such council exists,
the members of the union delegation or, where no
such delegation exits, the workers, to raise questions
regarding the collective redundancies contemplated
and to make arguments or submit counter-proposals
on that issue;

Appellant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbei-
tung und Mikroprozessorlabor (represented by: W. Göpfert,
Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as the Court of
First Instance dismissed the heads of claim submitted before
it,

— annul

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of
19 October 2005 in the appeal proceedings R 1059/2004-2,
and

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

4. he must have examined those questions, arguments
and counter-proposals referred to in (iii) and have
replied to them.

The appeal is based on errors in law in the interpretation in the
judgment under appeal of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Com-
munity Trade Mark Regulation.