Case C-268/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court (Ireland)) — Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment in the public sector — Employment conditions — Pay and pensions — Renewal of fixed-term contracts for a period of up to eight years — Procedural autonomy — Direct effect)
Date: 2008-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, labour law, national implementing measure, temporary employment, work contract

C 142/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2008

8. Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2887/2000, read in conjunction
with Article 5a(3) of Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June
1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommu-
nications services through the implementation of open network
provision, as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997, requires that
the national courts interpret and apply the domestic rules of proce-
dure governing the bringing of appeals in such a way that a deci-
sion of the national regulatory authority concerning the authorisa-
tion of rates for unbundled access to the local loop may be chal-
lenged before the courts, not only by the undertaking to which such
a decision is addressed but also by beneficiaries within the meaning
of that regulation whose rights are potentially affected by it.

local

loop conducted by a national
that regulation,

9. Regulation No 2887/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that,
during the procedure supervising the pricing for unbundled access to
regulatory authority
the
it is for the notified
pursuant to Article 4 of
operator to provide the evidence that its rates respect the principle
that rates are to be set on the basis of cost-orientation. On the
other hand, it is for the Member States to allocate the burden of
proof between the national regulatory authority which made the
decision to authorise the rates of the notified operator and the bene-
ficiary challenging that decision. It is also for the Member States to
establish, in accordance with their rules of procedure and the Com-
munity principles of effectiveness and equivalence of judicial protec-
tion, the rules on the allocation of that burden of proof when a
decision of the national regulatory authority authorising the rates
of a notified operator for unbundled access to its local loop is chal-
lenged before the courts.

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel,
Hasselt — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Direc-
tive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for
the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion of professional education and training of at least
three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Obligation on an
estate agent established in one Member State and engaged in
agency activities in another Member State to satisfy the condi-
tions governing the exercise of
that profession which are
imposed by the legislation of that latter State in pursuance of
the directive — Requirement imposed even in the case where
there is a contract of collaboration between that estate agent
and an estate agent who is authorised by that latter State

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December
1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training
of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001,
preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the performance,
on its territory, of activities such as those at issue in the main proceed-
ings by a service provider established in another Member State, and in
a situation such as that of the defendant in the main proceedings,
subject to obtaining an authorisation the grant of which is conditional
upon success in an aptitude test in law.

(1) OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 April 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
koophandel, Hasselt
(Belgium)) — Confederatie van
Immobiliën-Beroepen België and Beroepsinstituut van
Vastgoedmakelaars v Willem Van Leuken

(Case C-197/06) (1)

(Recognition of diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Estate
agent)

(2008/C 142/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel, Hasselt

Parties to the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court
(Ireland)) — Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food,
Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Commu-
nications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform, Minister for Transport

(Case C-268/06) (1)

(Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework
agreement on fixed-term work — Fixed-term employment in
the public sector — Employment conditions — Pay and
pensions — Renewal of fixed-term contracts for a period of
up to eight years — Procedural autonomy — Direct effect)

(2008/C 142/05)

Language of the case: English

Applicants: Confederatie van Immobiliën-Beroepen van België
and Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars

Defendant: Willem Van Leuken

Referring court

Labour Court

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impact

Defendants: Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts,
Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and
Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for
Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Labour Court — Interpretation of
Clause 4(1) (principle of non-discrimination) and Clause 5(1)
(measures to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive
fixed-term employment contracts or relationships) of the annex
to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning
the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by
ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Action
seeking to rely on the direct effect of those provisions — Lack
of jurisdiction, under national law, of the court seised — Juris-
diction under Community law,
in particular pursuant to the
principles of equivalence and effectiveness

Operative part of the judgment

1. Community law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, requires
that a specialised court which is called upon, under the, albeit
optional, jurisdiction conferred on it by the legislation transposing
Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the
framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC,
UNICE and CEEP, to hear and determine a claim based on an
infringement of that legislation, must also have jurisdiction to hear
and determine an applicant's claims arising directly from the direc-
tive itself in respect of the period between the deadline for trans-
posing the directive and the date on which the transposing legisla-
tion entered into force if it is established that the obligation on that
applicant to bring, at the same time, a separate claim based directly
on the directive before an ordinary court would involve procedural
disadvantages liable to render excessively difficult the exercise of the
rights conferred on him by Community law. It is for the national
court to undertake the necessary checks in that regard.

2. Clause 4(1) of

the framework agreement on fixed-term work
concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Directive
1999/70, is unconditional and sufficiently precise for individuals
to be able to rely upon it before a national court; that is not the
case, however, as regards Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement.

3. Article 10 EC, the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Direc-
tive 1999/70 must be interpreted as meaning that an authority of
a Member State acting in its capacity as a public employer may
not adopt measures contrary to the objective pursued by that direc-
tive and the framework agreement on fixed-term work as regards
prevention of the abusive use of fixed-term contracts, which consist
in the renewal of such contracts for an unusually long term in the
period between the deadline for transposing Directive 1999/70
and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force.

4. In so far as the applicable national

law contains a rule that
precludes the retrospective application of legislation unless there is a
clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary, a national court

hearing a claim based on an infringement of a provision of
national
legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 is required,
under Community law, to give that provision retrospective effect to
the date by which that directive should have been transposed only if
that national
that nature
legislation includes an indication of
capable of giving that provision retrospective effect.

5. Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work must be
interpreted as meaning that employment conditions within the
meaning of that clause encompass conditions relating to pay and to
pensions which depend on the employment relationship,
to the
exclusion of conditions relating to pensions arising under a statu-
tory social-security scheme.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 April 2008 —
Thomas Flaherty (C-373/06 P), Larry Murphy (C-379/06 P),
Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P) v Ireland, Commission of
the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — Resource conservation measures — Restructuring
of the fisheries sector — Requests to increase the tonnage
objectives of the multiannual guidance programme ‘MAGP IV’
— Dismissal of application)

(2008/C 142/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Thomas Flaherty (C-373/06 P), Larry Murphy
(C-379/06 P), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P) (represented by:
D. Barry, Solicitor, and A. Collins SC (C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P
and C-382/06 P),
and additionally by P. Gallagher SC
(C-379/06 P)

to the proceedings:

Other parties
the
European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and M. van
Heezik, Agents)

Ireland, Commission of

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber) of 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases
T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission annulling
Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the
requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV
objectives to take into account improvements on safety, naviga-
tion at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for