CELEX: C1997/212/37
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 21 May 1997 by Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH against the order made on 19 February 1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-117/96 between Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-196/97 P)

No C 212/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 7. 97
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its                   3.   refer the action back to the Court of First Instance for
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service                  determination on the merits;
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    4 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                             interlocutory dispute .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt and notify within the
      prescribed period the provisions necessary to transpose
      into its domestic legal system Council Directive 91/              The contested order states, contrary to the appellant's
      676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the                        express intention, that the real object of the appellant's
      protection of waters against pollution caused by                  action was a declaration that the Federal Republic of
      nitrates from agricultural sources ('), and in particular         Germany has infringed the Treaty through the case-law
      by failing to comply with the obligation laid down in             of its courts, and that the appellant has thereby suffered
      Article 3 ( 2 ) of that Directive, the Italian Republic has       loss . That reinterpretation is factually unjustified and
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law,             procedurally inadmissible .
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Liverpool
                                                                        Industrial Tribunal, by order of that court of 28 April
 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a                    1997, in the case of Donna Marie Davies against
 Directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon                                          Girobank pic
 each Member State to which it is addressed, implies an
 obligation on Member States to respect the time limits for                                        ( Case C-197/97)
 transposition laid down in Directives . That time limit                                             ( 97/C 212/38 )
 passed without the Italian Republic having adopted the
 measures necessary to comply with the Directive referred
 to in the form of order sought by the Commission.                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Liverpool
 0 ) OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .                             Industrial Tribunal of 28 April 1997, which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 23 May 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Donna Marie Davies against
                                                                         Girobank pic, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . Are all or any of the following contractual provisions
 Appeal brought on 21 May 1997 by Intertronic F.                              contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work
 Cornelis GmbH against the order made on 19 February                          under Article 119 of the EC Treaty so far as they
  1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance                    affect a woman who has returned to work after taking
 of the European Communities in Case T- 11 7/96 between                       maternity leave to which she was entitled:
 Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH and the Commission of the
                       European Communities                                   ( a ) a provision whereby entitlement to a pension
                          ( Case C-196/97 P)                                         ( under a final salary pension scheme ) is calculated
                                                                                     according to a formula which includes a factor
                             ( 97/C 212/37 )                                         representing pensionable service, where that
                                                                                     pensionable service does not accrue during any
  An appeal against the order made on 19 February 1997                               period of unpaid leave (which term includes a
  by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         period of unpaid maternity leave when the woman
  European Communities in Case T-l 17/96 between                                     is no longer in receipt of the contractual or
  Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH and the Commission of the                             statutory maternity pay ) when the employee does
  European Communities was brought before the Court of                               not pay contributions into the employer's
  Justice of the European Communities on 21 May 1997 by                              contributory pension scheme ;
  Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH, Emden ( Germany ),
  represented by Detlef Schumacher and Wilhelm Wiltfang,                       ( b ) a practice whereby entitlement to a pension ( under
  Rechtsanwalte, Bremen.                                                              a final salary pension scheme ) is calculated
                                                                                      according to a formula which includes a factor
                                                                                      representing final pensionable salary, which means
  The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                      whichever is the greater of ( i ) the amount of the
                                                                                      employee's pensionable salary paid during the
   1.  set aside the order of the Court of First Instance                             period of 12 months ending on the last day of her
       (Third Chamber ) of 19 February 1997;                                          employment, and ( ii ) the highest amount of
                                                                                      pensionable salary received by the employee during
  2 . declare the action admissible;                                                  any one of the last five complete tax years before