Case C-54/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium)) — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV (Directive 2000/43/EC — Discriminatory criteria for selecting staff — Burden of proof — Penalties)
Date: 2008-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, job access, penalty, racial discrimination, recruitment

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/11

3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities for it to rule on the pleas in law of Athinaïki Tech-
niki AE, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities of 2 June 2004 to take no further
action concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic
Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in the disposal of 49 %
of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.

4. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Dâmbovița — Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și
Internelor — Direcția Generală de Pașapoarte București v
Gheorghe Jipa

(Case C-33/07) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union — Article 18 EC — Directive
2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their
family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States)

(2008/C 223/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunal Dâmbovița

right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and
reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC,
90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC do not preclude national
legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to
travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the
ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member
the
State on account of his ‘illegal residence’
personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and
sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society
and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the
achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is
necessary to attain it. It is for the national court to establish whether
that is so in the case before it.

there, provided that

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te
Brussel (Belgium)) — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen
en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV

(Case C-54/07) (1)

(Directive 2000/43/EC — Discriminatory criteria for selecting
staff — Burden of proof — Penalties)

(2008/C 223/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Administrației și
Generală de Pașapoarte București

Internelor — Direcția

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Defendant: Gheorghe Jipa

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Dâmbovița —
Interpretation of Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive
2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their
family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC
and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the

Applicant: Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racisme-
bestrijding

Defendant: Firma Feryn NV

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of
Articles 2(2)(a), 8(1) and 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of
29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000
L 180, p. 22) — Staff selection criteria that discriminate directly
on grounds of racial or ethnic origin — Burden of proof —
Appraisal and establishment by a national court — Whether the
national court is, or is not, under an obligation to order that an
end be put to the discrimination

C 223/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

Operative part of the judgment

1. The fact that an employer states publicly that it will not recruit
employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin constitutes direct
discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of
Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June
2000 implementing the principle of equal
treatment between
persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, such statements being
likely strongly to dissuade certain candidates from submitting their
candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour
market.

2. Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that
under its recruitment policy it will not recruit any employees of a
certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the
existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory
within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43. It is
then for that employer to prove that there was no breach of the
principle of equal treatment. It can do so by showing that the
undertaking's actual recruitment practice does not correspond to
those statements. It is for the national court to verify that the facts
alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence
submitted in support of the employer's contentions that it has not
breached the principle of equal treatment.

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, acting as
Agents), Council of
the European Union (represented by:
M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

Re:

Extended Composition)

the Court of First
Appeal brought against the judgment of
Instance
of
(Second Chamber,
29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission, by
which the Court dismissed as partially inadmissible and partially
unfounded the action for annulment of the appellant's pension
payslips from May to July 2004, in as much as they applied for
the first time a weighting calculated in an allegedly unlawful
manner on the basis of the average cost of living in the appel-
lant's country of residence, rather than, as previously, in relation
to the cost of living in the capital of that country — Effect of
the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials on
the system of weighting — Transitional system for officials who
retired before 1 April 2004 — Method of calculating weighting
and respect for the principle of the equality of treatment —
Obligation to state reasons

3. Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 requires that rules on sanctions
applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to
transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissua-
sive, even where there is no identifiable victim.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

1. Dismisses the principal appeal and the cross-appeal.

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008
the European
— Franco Campoli v Commission of

Communities, Council of the European Union

(Case C-71/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Remuneration — Pension — Applica-
tion of the correction coefficient calculated on the basis of the
average cost of living in the country of residence — Transi-
tional arrangements established by the Regulation amending
the Staff Regulations — Objection of illegality)

(2008/C 223/18)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Bonn — Germany) — Andrea
v
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften
eV

Raccanelli

(Case C-94/07) (1)

(Article 39 EC — Concept of ‘worker’ — Non-governmental
organisation operating in the public interest — Doctoral grant
— Employment contract — Conditions)

(2008/C 223/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Franco Campoli
L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, avocats)

(represented by: G. Vandersanden,

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Bonn