Case C-303/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — S. Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law (Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3) and 3(1)(c) — Direct discrimination on grounds of disability — Harassment related to disability — Dismissal of an employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is disabled — Included — Burden of proof)
Date: 2008-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, psychological harassment, working conditions

C 223/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Com-
munity in a vehicle loaded on to a ferry without unloading the
animals — Failure to state in the route plan the times at which
the animals transported were fed and watered during the
journey

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment
Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — S. Coleman v Attridge Law,
Steve Law

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March
1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the
export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of
live bovine
animals during transport cannot be interpreted as meaning that
point 48(7)(b) of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of
19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport
and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as
amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, must
be applied to the case of transport by sea on a link between a
geographical point of the European Community and a geographical
point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded onto vessels
without unloading of the animals.

2. Point 48(7)(a) of the annex to Directive 91/628, as amended by
Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case
of transport by sea between a geographical point of the European
Community and a geographical point situated in a third country by
means of vehicles
loaded onto vessels without unloading the
animals, the duration of the transport does not have to be taken
into account if the animals are transported in accordance with the
conditions laid down in point 48(3) and (4) of the annex to Direc-
tive 91/628, apart from journey times and rest periods. If that is
the case, a further period of transport by road may begin immedi-
ately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination in the
third country, in accordance with point 48(4)(d).

3. A route plan containing a pre-typed statement

indicating that
during the ferry journey animals are fed and watered ‘in the
evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and morn-
requirements of Directive 91/628, as
ings’ may satisfy the
amended by Directive 95/29, provided that it is established that
the animals were in fact fed and watered as stated. If the competent
authority considers, in the light of all the documents submitted by
the exporter, that the requirements of that directive have not been
complied with, it is for that authority to assess whether that non
compliance had an effect on the welfare of the animals, whether
such non compliance may, where appropriate, be remedied and
whether it must result in the export refund being forfeited, reduced
or retained.

(1) OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

(Case C-303/06) (1)

(Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in
employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3)
and 3(1)(c) — Direct discrimination on grounds of disability
— Harassment related to disability — Dismissal of an
employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is
disabled — Included — Burden of proof)

(2008/C 223/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S. Coleman

Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal —
Interpretation of Articles 1, 2(2)(a) and 2(3) of Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) —
Scope of the term ‘disability’ — Possibility of extending it to a
person who is closely associated with a disabled person and has
been discriminated against by reason of
that association —
Employee bringing up a disabled child on her own

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 estab-
lishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and
occupation, and,
in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a)
thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of
direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited
only to people who are themselves disabled. Where an employer
treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than
another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable
situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of
that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is
provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to
the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/7

2. Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3)
thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of
harassment laid down by those provisions is not limited only to
people who are themselves disabled. Where it is established that the
unwanted conduct amounting to harassment which is suffered by
an employee who is not himself disabled is related to the disability
of his child, whose care is provided primarily by that employee,
such conduct is contrary to the prohibition of harassment laid down
by Article 2(3).

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2003/55/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal
market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC does not
preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, from providing for the extension, on conditions
which it lays down, of the length of the transitional period at the
end of which the early cessation of a concession for the distribution
of natural gas such as that in question in those proceedings must
occur. In those circumstances,
it must also be held that neither
Article 10 EC nor the principle of proportionality precludes such
legislation.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy)) — ASM
Brescia SpA v Comune di Rodengo Saiano

(Case C-347/06) (1)

2. Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC do not preclude legislation
of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
from providing for the extension, on conditions which it lays down,
of the length of the transitional period at the end of which the
early cessation of a concession for the distribution of natural gas
such as that in question in those proceedings must occur, provided
that such an extension can be regarded as being necessary to enable
the contracting parties to untie their contractual relations on accep-
table terms both from the point of view of the requirements of the
public service and from the economic point of view.

(Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — Concession for a public
gas-distribution service — Directive 2003/55 — Early cessa-
tion at the end of a transitional period — Principles of the
protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)

(1) OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.

(2008/C 223/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 July 2008
— Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corporation of America v
Commission of the European Communities Independent
Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, an inter-
national association), Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

(Case C-413/06 P) (1)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASM Brescia SpA

Defendant: Comune di Rodengo Saiano

Intervener: Anigas — Associazione Nazionale Industriali del Gas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo
regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 43, 49
and 86(1) EC and of Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003
concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas
and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) —
Automatic extension of concessions for the operation of the
public gas-distribution service

concentrations
(Appeals — Competition — Control of
between undertakings — Sony BMG joint venture — Appeal
against the annulment of a Commission decision declaring a
concentration compatible with the common market — Judicial
review — Scope — Standard of proof — Role of the state-
ment of objections — Strengthening or creation of a collective
dominant position — Statement of reasons for a decision
approving a concentration — Use of confidential information)

(2008/C 223/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Bertelsmann AG (represented by: P. Chappatte and J.
Boyce, Solicitors), Sony Corporation of America (represented by:
N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders, avocat, and T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)