CELEX: C1995/315/15
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-25 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 October 1995 in Case C-137/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen v. Secretary of State for Health, ex-parte Cyril Richardson (Equal treatment for men and women - Exemption from prescription charges - Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC - Link with pensionable age - Temporal effects of judgment)

No C 315/8            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
Civile e Penale di Milano in its order for reference of                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
31 March 1994 .
                                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                              of 19 October 1995
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .                                       in Case C-137/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the
                                                                        High Court of Justice of England and Wales ): The Queen v.
                                                                        Secretary of State for Health, ex-parte Cyril
                                                                                                  Richardson (')
                                                                        (Equal treatment for men and women — Exemption from
                                                                        prescription charges — Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC —
                                                                        Link with pensionable age — Temporal effects of
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   judgment)
                       ( Fourth Chamber )                                                         ( 95/C 315/ 15 )
                    of 19 October 1995
in Case C-128/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                        (Language of the case: English)
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ) Hans Honig v. Stadt
                            Stockach ( ! )
(Directive 88/166/EEC — Minimum standards for the
      protection of laying hens kept in battery cages)                  In Case C-137/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Divisional Court of the Queen 's
                          ( 95/C 315/14 )
                                                                        Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and
                                                                        Wales for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                        before that court between the Queen and the Secretary of
              (Language of the case: German)                            State for Health, ex-parte Cyril Richardson — on the
                                                                        interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
                                                                        19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
        published in the European Court Reports)                        matters of social security ( OJ 1979 L 6 , p. 24 ) — the Court
                                                                        ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of
                                                                        the Chamber, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
In Case C-128/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.
of the EC Treaty by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht for a                  Elmer , Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               the Registrar, gave a' judgment on 19 October 1995 , in
court between Hans Honig and Stadt Stockach — on the                    which it ruled :
interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Annex to Council
Directive 88/ 166/EEC of 7 March 1988 complying with the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 131 /86 ( annulment
of Council Directive 86/ 113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying                 1 . Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens                     19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation
kept in battery cages ) ( OJ 1988 L 74, p. 83 ) — the Court                  of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President                   in matters of social security is to be interpreted as
of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), and J. L.                   meaning that a system such as that established by
Murray, Judges; Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar:                      Regulation 6 (1 ) of the National Health Service
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on                     (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations 1989,
 19 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                         exempting various categories of persons, in particular
follows :                                                                    certain old people, from prescription charges falls
                                                                             within the scope of the Directive.
Article 3 (1 ) (a) of the Annex to Council Directive
88/1 66/EEC of 7 March 1 988 complying with the judgment
of the Court of Justice in Case 131 /86 (annulment of                   2 . Article 7 (1 ) (a) of Directive 79/7/EEC does not allow a
 Council Directive 86/113/EEC of 25 March 1986 laying                        Member State which, pursuant to that provision, has set
down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens                     the pensionble age for women at 60 years and for men at
kept in battery cages) is to be interpreted as permitting                    65 years also to provide that women are be exempt from
Member States to lay down stricter national rules regarding                  prescription charges at the age of 60 and men only at the
                                                                             age of 65.
cage area for laying hens kept in battery cages.
    OJ No C 174, 25 . 6. 1                                               ^ There is no reason to limit the temporal effect of this
                                                                             judgment, so that the direct effect of Article 4 (1 ) of
                                                                             Directive 79/7/EEC may also be relied on to support
                                                                             claims for damages in respect ofperiods prior to the date
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 315/9
     of the judgment by persons who have not brought legal             Action brought on 29 September 1995 by the Commission
     proceedings or made an equivalent claim prior to that             of the European Communities against the Council of the
     date.                                                                                    European Union
                                                                                              ( Case C-309/95 )
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .                                                                ( 95/C 315/ 17 )
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 29 September 1 995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet
                                                                       and Jean-Paul Keppenne, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                       la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       ( Second Chamber)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                      of 17 October 1995                               — annul the Council 's decision of 22 June 1995 on the
in Case C-62/94 P: Mariette Turner v. Commission of the                    granting of exceptional aid to producers of table wine in
                  European Communities ( 1 )                               France ,
(Official — Compulsory reassignment — Non-material
damage — Claim for compensation — Appeal manifestly                    — order the Council to pay the coses .
                 inadmissible and unfounded)
                           ( 95/C 315/ 16 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Misapplication of the third subparagraph of Article
                (Language of the case: French)                             93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty; abuse of process; lack of
                                                                           competence .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               The Council is not empowered to take decisions — on
          published in the European Court Reports)                         the basis of the third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                           which was extended to certain agriculturl products by a
                                                                           Regulation on the common organization of the relevant
In Case C-62/94 P : Mariette Turner, a former official of the              markets — derogating from provisions which are of
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        central importance to the machinery for the common
Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the                     organization of the market ( COM ), where the effect of
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 those decisions is to impair the proper operation of the
the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener — appeal                    principal mechanisms of the COM . State aid which
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 causes the purchase price of table wines delivered for
European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ) of 16 December                      preventive distillation to rise to the level of market prices
 1993 in Case T-80/92 Turner v. Commission ( 1993 ) ECR                    not only distorts competition between producers within
11-1465 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other               the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ), but it lends greater support
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                  to prices than that expressly envisaged by the COM and
Communities ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Denis                         counters the dissuasive effect expressly mentioned in the
Waelbroeck ) — the Court, composed of: G. Hirsch                           preamble to the basic Regulation, which is necessary to
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and               enable production to be controlled, and at the same time
F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                   makes the Commission 's management task impossible
R. Grass , Registrar, made an order on 17 October 1995 , the               to carry out .
 operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           If the Council wished to change the common
                                                                           organization of the market in wine in order to obtain the
 1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                              result sought, it should have followed the procedural
                                                                           rules laid down by Article 43 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                           which ensure compliance with the institutional balance
 2 . Mrs Turner is ordered to pay the costs of these                       established by the Treaty . Consequently, the contested
     proceedings.                                                          decision is vitiated by lack of competence .
 (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                          ( By way of subsidiary pleas )
                                                                        — Absence of 'exceptional circumstances' within the
                                                                            meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 ) of