CELEX: C1999/160/04
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-71/99: Action brought on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

C 160/2                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.6.1999
of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn,             Action brought on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of
J. P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,        the European Communities against the Federal Republic
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,                                             of Germany
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges: G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 March                                       (Case C-71/99)
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                     (1999/C 160/04)
2. Guérin Automobiles EURL is ordered to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 258, 15.8.1998.                                                Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Advisor
                                                                        in the Legal Service of the European Commission and Paolo
                                                                        Stancanelli, a member of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz a member of the Legal
                                                                        Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirch-
                                                                        berg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 21 January
1999 in the case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
bofrost (1) Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co
KG v. bofrost (1) Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH
                              & Co KG                                   — declare that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil
                                                                            its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
                           (Case C-62/99)                                   21 May 1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                            and of wild flora and fauna by failing to transmit to the
                                                                            Commission a full list of the sites referred to in the first
                          (1999/C 160/03)                                   subparagraph of Article 4 (1) together with the information
                                                                            on each site set out in the second subparagraph of Article
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      4 (1), and
European Communities by an order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court), by order of that
court of 21 January 1999, which was received at the Court               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Registry on 22 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of bofrost (1) Josef
H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG v. bofrost (1)
Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG on the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
following questions:
(a) Is Article 11 (1) and (2) of Council Directive 94/45/EC of
     22 September 1994 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that            According to the Commission, the first subparagraph of
     the right to information laid down therein exists even             Article 4 (1) of the Directive requires the Member States to
     where it is not (yet) established whether or not there is a        propose in their lists sites which are most suitable for
     controlling undertaking within the meaning of Article 3 of         conservation of the relevant habitats and at the same time
     Directive 94/95/EC in a group of undertakings as defined           geographically representative of the national territory of each
     in Article 2 (1) (b) of Directive 94/45/EC?                        Member State as a whole. The Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                        therefore infringes Community law in proposing a list which
(b) If question (a) is answered in the affirmative:                     omits a whole series of habitat types. It further infringes
                                                                        Community law in not assuring geographical representativity
     Does the right to information in Article 11 (1) and (2) of         for the whole of the territory of the Federal Republic of
     Directive 94/45/EC also include the right of a works               Germany, for instance, because no sites for habitat types
     council to request from the undertaking concerned infor-           within Annex 1 or species within Annex 2 in the Federal
     mation which gives rise to the presumption referred to in          States of Brandenburg, Sachsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,
     Article 3 (2) of Directive 94/45/EC?                               Baden-Württemberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen are mentioned or
                                                                        because the lists hitherto provided are incomplete.
(c) Does Article 11 (1) and (2) of Directive 94/45/EC include
     the right of a works council to request documents from an
     undertaking to clarify and explain such information?               Under Article 4 (1) of the Directive, a complete list was to be
                                                                        transmitted by 10 June 1995. Even taking into account the
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                         fact that the formula which Article 4 (1) required to be used
                                                                        was not available at that time, the information could none the
                                                                        less have been entered soon after notification of the formula
                                                                        on 19 December 1996 and transmitted. But at the time of
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 160/3
bringing proceedings, the information sheets are still incom-          The Commission terminated the subsidy contract concluded
plete for 27,1 % of the proposed sites; the information has not        with the defendants as provided for the contract, for failure to
been transmitted with the standard form information sheet              implement the project, and is demanding partial reimburse-
EUR 15 for 4 % of the proposed sites; and no standard                  ment of the advance paid plus interest at the contractual rate.
information sheet with scientific data has been transmitted in
respect of 67,4 % of the proposed sites.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                       Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                                 (Case C-78/99)
                                                                                                (1999/C 160/06)
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against 1. Oder-Plan Architek-                An action against the French Republic was brought before the
tur GmbH, 2. NCC Siab Bau GmbH and 3. Esbensen                         Court of Justice of the European Communtities on 3 March
                     Consulting Engineers                              1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
                                                                       Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                         (Case C-77/99)                                for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (1999/C 160/05)
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
An action against 1. Oder-Plan Architktur GmbH, 2. NCC Siab
Bau GmbH and 3. Esbensen Consulting Engineers was brought              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of the European                          European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal                  29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and
Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European Commission              89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives
and Karin Schreyer, a national civil servant seconded to the               73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life
Legal Service of the Commission, with an address for service               insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
a Member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner                    investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                             undertakings for collective investment in transferable
                                                                           securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
                                                                           supervision (1), alternatively by omitting to communicate
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the measures necessary to comply therewith, the French
                                                                           Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                           directive,
— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    European Commission 54 510 EUR plus interest in the
                                                                       — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    amount of 20 798.70 EUR for the period from 1 January
    1993 to 15 January 1999,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    European Commission interest on the principal sum of
    54 510 EUR at the rate used by the European Monetary               The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
    Cooperation Fund plus two per cent, and                            of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty is such as to oblige Member States to which directives
                                                                       are addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order to
— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs          transpose those directives into their national legal order within
    of the action.                                                     the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-limit in question
                                                                       expired on 18 July 1996 but the French Republic has not
                                                                       adopted the necessary measures.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       (1) OJ L 168, 18.7.1995, p. 7.
The Court has jurisdiction on the basis of an arbitration clause
concluded in 1992.