Case C-112/08: Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2008-03-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, credit institution, national implementing measure, provision of services, right of establishment

C 128/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2008

The Hellenic Republic responded to the Commission's reasoned
opinion on 30 May 2007 and explained to the Commission
that, taking into account every possible delay in completing the
procedure, issue of the digital tachograph cards to drivers would
be possible by the end of 2007.

The Commission asks the Court to order the Hellenic Republic
to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts
v Proost NV

(Case C-116/08)

(2008/C 128/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-112/08)

(2008/C 128/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M.A. Rabanal Suárez and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2006/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking
up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and in
particular: Article 68(2), Article 72, Article 73(3), Article 74,
Articles 99, 100 and 101, Articles 110 to 114, Articles 118
and 119, Articles 124 to 127, Articles 129 to 132,
Article 133, Article 136, Articles 144 and 145, Article 149,
Article 152, Article 154(1), Article 155, Annex V, Annex VI
(except part I), Annex VII to XII (except Annex X parts I, II
and III), and in any event, by failing to communicate those
provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/48/EC
into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

(1) OJ 2006 L 177, p. 1.

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C. Meerts

Respondent: Proost NV

Question referred

Are clauses 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement
on parental
leave concluded on 14 December 1995 by the
general cross-industry organisations UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC
which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June
1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to be interpreted as meaning
that, where an employer unilaterally terminates an employment
contract without urgent cause or without compliance with the
statutory period of notice at a time when the worker is availing
the
himself of arrangements
payment in lieu of notice that is due to the worker must be
determined by reference to the base salary calculated as if the
worker had not reduced his working hours as a form of parental
leave in accordance with clause [2].3(a) of the framework agree-
ment?

reduced working hours,

for

(1) OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Transportes
Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL v Administración del
Estado

(Case C-118/08)

(2008/C 128/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo