Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P: 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 (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)
Date: 2008-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appeal, carrying capacity, fishing vessel, maritime safety

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

C 142/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2008

vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (notified under
document number C(2003) 1113) (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), but
dismissing the applications lodged by the appellants as inadmis-
sible — Persons (who are not) individually concerned by the
annulled decision

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nuova Agricast Srl

Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of

Instance of

the Court of First

the
European Communities of 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases
T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission (i) in so
far as it dismissed as inadmissible the applications of Mr Flaherty,
Mr Murphy and Ocean Trawlers Ltd for annulment of 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, navigation at sea, hygiene, product
quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in
length overall, and (ii) in so far as it ordered the appellants to bear
their own costs;

2. Annuls Decision 2003/245 in so far as it applies to the vessels of

Mr Flaherty, Mr Murphy and Ocean Trawlers Ltd;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
costs incurred by Mr Flaherty, Mr Murphy and Ocean Trawlers Ltd
in respect of both the proceedings at first instance and the present
appeals.

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.
OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

Preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Roma — Validity of
the Commission Decision of 12 July 2000 declaring compatible
with the Treaty an aid scheme provided for under Italian legisla-
tion in the form of aid for investment in the less-favoured
regions of Italy (SG(2000)D/105754)

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question submitted has revealed nothing which
might affect the validity of the decision of the Commission of 12 July
2000 not to raise objections against an aid scheme for investment in
the less-favoured regions of Italy until 31 December 2006 (State aid
No N 715/99 — Italy).

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

the Court

Judgment of
(First Chamber) of 17 April
from
2008
a
the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Quelle AG v
und
Bundesverband

Verbraucherzentralen

preliminary

(reference

ruling

der

for

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 April 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordi-
nario di Roma) — Nuova Agricast Srl v Ministero delle
Attività Produttive

(Case C-390/06) (1)

(State aid — Aid scheme authorised for a specific period —
Notification of the amended aid scheme for a new period —
Transitional measures between the two schemes — Decision of
the Commission not to raise objections — Information avail-
able to the Commission — Validity of the Commission's deci-
sion — Equal treatment — Statement of reasons)

(2008/C 142/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Verbraucherverbände

(Case C-404/06) (1)

(Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of
consumer goods and associated guarantees — Right of the
seller, where goods not in conformity are replaced, to require
the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those goods
— No charge for the use of the goods not in conformity)

(2008/C 142/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Quelle AG

Defendant:
Verbraucherverbände

Bundesverband

der Verbraucherzentralen

und