Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

16.6.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 173/29

harmonised at Community level may be subject to The appellant claims that the Court should:
provisions justified in the general interest such as rules
concerning organisation of the profession, qualification — set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
and professional conduct, the Commission considers that European Communities of 30 January 2001;
the French legislation lays down disproportionate and

—
excessively restrictive conditions for the exercise in France order the European Commission to pay all the costs, with
of the profession in question by intellectual property all the legal consequences which that entails.
advisers lawfully established in another Member State and
supplying services in France on an isolated occasion.
Other measures — less restrictive than mandatory entry _Pleas in law and main arguments_
on a register preceded by an examination — could be
envisaged, for example: —
Error of law: given the structure of the appellant company’s production chain, which is unique in the south1. a requirement to practice under the home-country west, the Court of First Instance should have specifically
title; examined whether, as at the date of its adoption, the
contested regulation particularly affected the appellant.

2. a requirement that the person practising the pro- —
Distortion of the appellant’s claims.
fession produces his qualification;

—
Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons for the ruling
3. a declaration system (such as that provided for in on the plea alleging disregard of the right to seek effective
Article 22 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the relief by bringing proceedings: the contested order does
mutual recognition of architects’ qualifications)( [2] ). not deal with the appellant’s argument that the Commission’s interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation
— Infringement of Article 49 EC by imposing residence or No 2081/92( [1] ), to the effect that that article restricts the
a place of business in France as a condition for the supply right to object to the procedure at Member State level,
of services there on an isolated occasion. disregards the right to seek effective relief by bringing
proceedings.

—
Misinterpretation of Article 7 of Regulation No 2081/92:
( [1] ) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16. disregard by the Community legal order of the guaranteed
( [2] ) Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of right to seek effective relief by bringing proceedings,
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications which constitutes a general legal principle: the effect of a
in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective failure to act on the part of a Member State must be such
exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide
as to permit an undertaking which otherwise fulfils the
services (OJ No L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15).
admissibility requirements laid down by Article 7(4) to
raise an objection with the Commission.

( [1] ) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).

**Appeal brought on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste**
**against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the Fifth**
**Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European**
**Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Con-**
**queste and the Commission of the European Communities**
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht**
**Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the**
**(Case C-151/01 P)** **case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit**

(2001/C 173/49) **(Case C-160/01)**

(2001/C 173/50)
An appeal against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Conqueste Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and the Commission of the European Communities was European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi- (Social Court, Leipzig) of 30 March 2001, received at the Court
ties on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste, represented by Registry on 12 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and F. Thiriez, avocats, with an of Karen Mau against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal
address for service in Paris. Labour Office) on the following questions:

C 173/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16.6.2001

1. Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide Question 1
for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
Directive 80/987/EEC( [1] ) of 20 October 1980 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
to the protection of employees in the event of the
of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
insolvency of their employer?
to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
2. Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited assembly of a chamber of workers?
the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?

3. Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages Question 2
to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
of Directive 80/987/EEC?
If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
4. Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken
1980 on the development of the Association directly applias the basis for determining the reference period is that
cable Community law?
of the request for the opening of proceedings?

5. Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period provided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
compatible with Article 141 EC?

6. In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?

**Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of**
**the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of**
( [1] ) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23. **Luxembourg**

**(Case C-174/01)**

(2001/C 173/52)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi**Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-** ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
**gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the** Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
**election proceedings brought by the electoral group** as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
**‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne**
**GewerkschafterInnen/UG’**

The applicant claims that the Court should
**(Case C-171/01)**

—
Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
(2001/C 173/51) for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC( [1] ) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts- biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a obligations under that directive;
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und

—
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions: Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.