CELEX: C1997/040/27
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier by order of that court of 29 November 1996 in the case of Caisse de Pension des Employés Privés v. l. Dieter Korde, 2. Rainer Kordel and 3. Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG (Case C-397/96)

8 . 2 . 97               I hN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 40/ 13
Directive . Furthermore , there is no provision which would                          Directive ') (') to dismiss a female employee, at any
require the Minister concerned to inform the Commission                              time during her pregnancy, as a result of absence
( Article 2 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the Directive ).                                          through illness arising from that pregnancy ?
Article 5 : Information to be supplied by the developer                        ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                     Question 1 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
                                                                                     pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
There is nothing in the Irish legislation that indicates that                        employer to dismiss employees, irrespective of
a decision-maker, before restricting a demand to Article                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
5 ( 2 ), mandatory information only, should consider the                             continued absence ?
relevance or reasonableness of asking for Annex III
optional information . It is the Commission 's contention
that, before so restricting the demand, the decision-maker                2 . ( a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of the
should apply the Article 5 ( 1 ) test as to the relevance and/                       Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a female
or reasonableness of asking for Annex III information and                            employee as a result of absence through illness
should have concluded that either the information was
                                                                                     arising from pregnancy who does not qualify for
irrelevant (paragraph ( a ) of Article 5 ( 1 )), or the demand                       the right to absent herself from work on account
unreasonable ( paragraph ( b ) of Article 5 ( 1 )). As it stands ,                   of pregnancy or childbirth for the period specified
the Irish legislation leaves the decision-maker entirely free                        by national law because she has not been
to ignore the optional information as a matter of general                            employed for the period imposed by national law,
practice .                                                                           where dismissal takes place during that period ?
Article 7: Information to the other Member States                              ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                     Question 2 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
The Irish legislation provides a mechanism whereby local                             pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
authorities ( the decision-makers ) should notify the Irish                          employer to dismiss employees , irrespective of
Minister for the Environment of an application likely to                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
                                                                                     continued absence ?
have significant effects on the environment in another
Member State. It then allows the Minister to require the
local authority to furnish him with such information and                  H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
documents as he may specify. However, this latter power
can only be exercised where the other Member State has
sought to be consulted . Furthermore , there appears to be
no explicit duty on the Minister to furnish information to
the other Member State .
 (') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier by order of that court of 29 November 1996 in the
                                                                          case of Caisse de Pension des Employes Prives v. 1. Dieter
                                                                          Korde , 2 . Rainer Kordel and 3 . Frankfurter Alii an z
                                                                                                     Versicherungs AG
                                                                                                      ( Case C-397/96 )
Reference for a prelimininary ruling by the House of                                                     ( 97/C 40/27 )
 Lords, by order of that court of 28 November 1996, in
     the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited
                             ( Case C-394/96 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                ( 97/C 40/26 )                            European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier ( Trier Regional Court ) of 29 November 1996 , which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 12 December 1996 ,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse de Pension
 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                   des Employes Prives v. 1 . Dieter Kordel , 2 . Rainer Kordel
 of 28 November 1996 , which was received at the Court                    and 3 . Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG on the
 Registry on 9 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                  following question :
 the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited, on
 the following questions :
                                                                           How is Article 93 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (')
                                                                           to be interpreted ? Does recognition by the Member States
  1 . a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of Council        extend      also to the definition        of the content of the
           Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  subrogated claim in another Member State ( in this case ,
           implementation of the principle of equal treatment              the second sentence of Article 232 of the Luxembourg
           for men and women as regards access to                          Code des Assurances Sociales in conjunction with the
           employment, vocational training and promotion,                  relevant Grand Ducal Regulation, under which the claim
           and working conditions ('the Equal Treatment                    to which the pension fund is subrogated is to amount to
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal