CELEX: C1997/009/04
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (Equal pay for men and women - Right to join an occupational pension scheme - Right to payment of a retirement pension - Part-time workers)

No C 9/2             I EN 1                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11 . 1 . 97
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH (represented by Gerhard
17 October 1996, the operative part of which is as                       Wiedemann ) and Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG ( represented
follows :                                                                by Hans-Jürgen Rabe ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : Ben Smulders and Jürgen
1 . A Member State may not make grant of the tax                         Grunwald ) — application for annulment of Commission
     advantage provided for in Article 5 (1 ) of Council                 Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April 1993 concerning aid
     Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common                  awarded by the German Government to Hibeg and by
     system of taxation applicable in the case of parent                 Hibeg via Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG,
     companies and subsidiaries of different Member States               facilitating the sale of Krupp Atlas Elektronik GmbH from
     subject to the condition that, at the moment when                   Krupp GmbH to Bremer Vulkan AG (2 ) — the Court
     profits are distributed, the parent company must have               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
     held a minimum of 25 % of the capital of the                        of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G.
     subsidiary for a period at least equal to that set by               Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.
     that Member State pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the                  Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     Directive. It is for the Member States to draw up rules             a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
     for ensuring compliance with this minimum period, in
     accordance with the procedures laid down in their
     domestic law. Those States are not obliged under the                1 . Annuls Commission Decision 93/412/EEC of 6 April
     Directive to grant the advantage immediately, on the                      1993 concerning aid awarded by the German
     basis of a unilateral undertaking by the parent                           Government to Hibeg and by Hibeg via Krupp GmbH
     company to observe the minimum holding period.                           to Bremer Vulkan AG, facilitating the sale of Krupp
                                                                              Atlas Elektronik GmbH from Krupp GmbH to
2 . Where a Member State has exercised the option                              Bremer Vulkan AG;
     provided for in Article 3 (2) of the Directive, parent
     companies may rely directly on the rights conferred by
     Article 5 (1 ) and (3) of the Directive before national
                                                                         2 . Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     courts, if those companies observe the holding period
                                                                               to pay the costs.
     set by that Member State.
3 . Community law does not require a Member State                        (M OJ No C 222, 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 and OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 .
     which, when transposing the Directive, stipulated that                   1995 , p. 9 .
     the minimum holding period set pursuant to                          (2 ) OJ No L 185 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 43 .
     Article 3 (2) must be completed at the time when the
     profits that are the subject of the tax advantage
     afforded by Article 5 are distributed to compensate
     the parent company for damage which it may have
     incurred by reason of the error thus made.
0 ) OJ No C 351 , 10. 12 . 1994 , pp . 8 and 10 .                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(2 ) OJ No L 225 , 20 . 8 . 1990, p . 6 .
                                                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                 of 24 October 1996
                                                                         in Case C-435/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                         the Rotterdam Kantongerecht): Francina Johanna Maria
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                Dietz v. Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam (' )
                           ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                          (Equal pay for men and women — Right to join an
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                         occupational pension scheme — Right to payment of a
in Joined Cases C-329/93 , C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                             retirement pension — Part-time workers)
Republic of Germany and Others v. Commission of the
                   European Communities 0 )                                                            ( 97/C 9/04 )
(State aid — Guarantee given by the public authorities in
favour indirectly of a shipbuilding undertaking for the                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
acquisition of an undertaking in another sector —
Diversification of the activities of the recipient
                    undertaking — Recovery)
                               ( 97/C 9/03 )
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                    published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-435/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Rotterdam
                                                                         Kantongerecht ( Cantonal Court) (Netherlands ), for a
In Joined Cases C-329/93, C-62/95 and C-63/95 : Federal                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Germany ( Agent: Ernst Röder ), Hanseatische                 court between Francina Johanna Maria Dietz and
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 1 . 97  .     I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/3
Stichting Thuiszorg Rotterdam — on the interpretation of                   from membership of the occupational scheme in
Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Protocol 2 to Article 119                 breach of Article 119 of the Treaty, those rights being
of the Treaty establishing the European Union — the                        governed by the judgment in Bilka.
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and             (!) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 , p . 12 .
P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it has
ruled :
                                                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1 . The right to join an occupational pension scheme falls                                    (Fourth Chamber)
     within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and
     is therefore covered by the prohibition of                                              of 24 October 1996
     discrimination laid down therein. That interpretation
                                                                     in Case C-86/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     does not depend on the purposes of the national                 the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): H. J. A. M.
     legislation enabling membership to be made                      van Iersel ( liquidator of Pluimvee- en wildwerkende
     compulsory or on the fact that the employer lodged an           industrie . De Venhorst BV) v. Staatssecretaris , van
     objection to the decision to make such membership                           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( 1 )
     compulsory or on his having conducted an enquiry
     among his employees with a view to seeking                      (Health inspections and controls — Circumstances in
     exemption from compulsory membership.                           which an undertaking is obliged to pay the fee for cutting
                                                                                                  operations)
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 9/05
2. The limitation of the effects in time of the Barber
     judgment (Case C-262/88) does not apply to the right                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
     to join an occupational pension scheme, such as that
     at issue in the main proceedings, or to the right to
     payment of a retirement pension where the worker                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     was excluded from membership of the scheme in                             published in the European Court Reports)
     breach of Article 119 of the Treaty.
                                                                     In Case C-86/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the College van Beroep
3 . The administrators of an occupational pension scheme             voor het Bedrijfsleven ( Administrative Court for Trade
     must, like the employer, comply with Article 119 of             and Industry, the Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in
     the Treaty and workers who are discriminated against            the proceedings pending , before that court between
     may assert their rights directly against those                  H. J. A. M. van Iersel ( liquidator of Pluimvee- en
     administrators.                                                 wildwerkende industrie De Venhorst BV) and
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
                                                                     — on the interpretation of Council Decision 88/408/EEC
                                                                     of 15 June 1988 on the levels of the fees to be charged for
4 . The fact that a worker can claim retroactive                     health inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to
     membership of an occupational pension scheme does               Directive 85/73/EEC ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber),
     not enable him to avoid paying contributions for the            composed of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the
     period of membership concerned.                                 Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
                                                                     F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it has
                                                                     ruled :
5 . The national rules relating to time-limits for bringing
     actions under national law may be relied on against             Article 3 (1 ) of Council Decision 88/408/EEC of 15 June
     workers who assert their right to join an occupational          1988 on the levels of the fees to be charged for health
     pension scheme or to payment of a retirement pension,           inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to
     provided that they are not less favourable for such             Directive 85/73/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that
     actions than for similar domestic actions and that they         the part of the fees referred to therein is payable only in
     do not render the exercise of rights conferred by               respect of meat which is actually boned or cut during the
     Community law excessively difficult or impossible in            production stage between the slaughter of the animal and
     practice.                                                       the storage of the meat.
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 14 .
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 22 . 7. 1988 , p . 24 .
6 . Protocol 2 does not affect the right to join an
     occupational pension scheme or the right to draw a
     retirement pension where the worker was excluded