CELEX: C2000/233/05
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 16 May 2000 in Case C-78/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords): Shirley Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc (Social policy — Men and women — Equal pay — Membership of an occupational pension scheme — Part-time workers — Exclusion — National procedural rules — Principle of effectiveness — Principle of equivalence)

C 233/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
Administratif, Paris (France) for a preliminary ruling in the             hed in Chesterfield, United Kingdom, represented by K.P.E.
proceedings pending before that court between Gascogne                    Lasok QC, and P. Harris, Barrister, instructed by A. Mott,
Limousin Viandes SA and Office national interprofessionnel                Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
des viandes de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Orival) on the               Chambers of Zeyen, Beghin, Feider, Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke,
validity, under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following            56-58 Rue Charles Martel — application by the Commission
amendment, Article 34(2) EC), of Article 4i(2) of Regulation              of the European Communities under Article 42 of the ECSC
(EEC) No 805/68 of the Council on the common organization                 Treaty for the recovery of a sum of ECU 252 558, correspon-
of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council                     ding to an interest rebate which it had granted to Coal Products
Regulation No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 (OJ 1996                        Ltd under a contract to assist Coal Products Ltd in consuming
L 296, p. 50) and Article 50(1) of Commission Regulation                  coal produced in the Community, plus interest at the rate of
(EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed                 8 % as from 1 November 1995, and counterclaim by the
rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for             defendant for the payment of a sum of ECU 46 010, plus
in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common                       interest as from 3 February 1995 — the Court (First Chamber),
organization of the market in beef and repealing Regulations              composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, D.A.O.
(EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992 L 391,                      Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                          General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1996 L 313, p. 9) —                     a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),             1.   Dismisses the application by the Commission of the European
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and Mrs F. Macken, Judges, Advo-                  Communities and the counterclaim by Coal Products Ltd;
cate General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Admi-
nistrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May
                                                                          2.   Orders the Commission of the European Communities and Coal
2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               Products Ltd to bear their own costs.
Examination of the question submitted has disclosed no factor likely
to affect the validity of Article 4i(2) of Regulation No 805/68 of        (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
the Council on the common organization of the market in beef
and veal, as amended by Council Regulation No 2222/96 of
18 November 1996 and Article 50(1) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in
Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC)
No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996.
                                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                                                  of 16 May 2000
                                                                          in Case C-78/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                          the House of Lords): Shirley Preston and Others v
                                                                          Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and
                                                                              Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                          (Social policy — Men and women — Equal pay — Members-
                          (First Chamber)                                 hip of an occupational pension scheme — Part-time workers
                                                                          — Exclusion — National procedural rules — Principle of
                          of 16 May 2000                                             effectiveness — Principle of equivalence)
in Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                             (2000/C 233/05)
                    ties v Coal Products Ltd (1)
             (Arbitration clause — Interest rebate)                                         (Language of the case: English)
                          (2000/C 233/04)
                                                                          In Case C-78/98 — reference by the House of Lords for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                          Article 234 EC) in the case of Shirley Preston and Others v
                    (Language of the case: English)                       Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others and
                                                                          Dorothy Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc on the
In Case C-274/97: Commission of the European Communities                  interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to
(Agents: P. Oliver and B. Doherty) v Coal Products Ltd, establis-         120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 233/3
to 143 EC), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rappor-
teur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Admi-                                     of 16 May 2000
nistrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 May 2000,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                             in Case C-83/98 P: French Republic v Ladbroke Racing
1.    Community law does not preclude a national procedural rule                Ltd and Commission of the European Communities (1)
      which requires that a claim for membership of an occupational
      pension scheme (from which the right to pension benefits flows)
      must, if it is not to be time-barred, be brought within six
      months of the end of the employment to which the claim relates,
      provided, however, that that limitation period is not less                          (Appeal — Competition — State aid)
      favourable for actions based on Community law than for those
      based on domestic law.
                                                                                                     (2000/C 233/06)
2.    Community law precludes a national procedural rule which
      provides that a claimant’s pensionable service is to be calculated
      only by reference to service after a date falling no earlier than
      two years prior to the date of claim.
                                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
3.    An action alleging infringement of a statute such as the Equal
      Pay Act 1970 does not constitute a domestic action similar to
      an action alleging infringement of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
      (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by            In Case C-83/98 P: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
      Articles 136 EC to 143 EC).                                            Bellanger, F. Million and J.-M. Belorgey) — Appeal against the
                                                                             judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                             Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
4.    In order to determine whether a right of action available under        27 January 1998 in Case T-67/94 Ladbroke Racing v Commis-
      domestic law is a domestic action similar to proceedings to give       sion [1998] ECR II-1, seeking to have that judgment set aside
      effect to rights conferred by Article 119 of the Treaty, the           in part, the other parties to the proceedings being: Ladbroke
      national court must consider whether the actions concerned are         Racing Ltd, established in London, represented by C. Vajda QC
      similar as regards their purpose, cause of action and essential        and S. Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
      characteristics.                                                       bourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 9-10 Rue
                                                                             Mathias Hardt, and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett) the Court, composed of:
5.    In order to decide whether procedural rules are equivalent, the        G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      national court must verify objectively, in the abstract, whether       D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
      the rules at issue are similar taking into account the role played     Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
      by those rules in the procedure as a whole, as well as the             G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges;
      operation of that procedure and any special features of those          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      rules.                                                                 judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
6.    Community law precludes a procedural rule which has the effect         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      of requiring a claim for membership of an occupational pension
      scheme (from which the right to pension benefits flows) to be
      brought within six months of the end of each contract of               2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      employment to which the claim relates where there has been a
      stable employment relationship resulting from a succession of
      short-term contracts concluded at regular intervals in respect of
      the same employment to which the same pension scheme
      applies.                                                               (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.