CELEX: C2003/264/30
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-357/03: Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

1.11.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 264/19
1.    Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 11(2)(a)                    EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and
      of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and Article 6(1)(g) of Directive                safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents
      86/378/EEC (2), as amended by Directive 96/97/EC (3),                      at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of
      preclude provisions of statutes governing a supplemen-                     Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
      tary occupational pension scheme of the kind at issue in                   of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this case under which an employee, during statutory                        Article 14 of that directive;
      maternity leave (in this case from 16 December 1992 to
      5 April 1993 and from 17 January to 22 April 1994),                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      acquires no deferred rights to an insurance annuity which,                 proceedings.
      in the event of her early departure from the compulsory
      insurance scheme, may be claimed monthly from the time
      the insurance contingency (pensionable age, occupational
      disability or invalidity) materialises, because the accrual of
      such rights is conditional upon the employee’s receiving             Pleas in law and main arguments
      taxable pay during the relevant period, but the benefits
      paid to her during maternity leave do not constitute
      taxable pay under the provisions of national law?                    The period for transposition expired on 5 May 2001.
2.    Is this the case in particular if account is taken of the fact
                                                                           (1) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
      that the insurance annuity is not — like the occupational
      pension which would be paid if the insurance contingency
      materialised whilst she was still in the compulsory
      pension scheme — intended to cover the employee in
      old age or in the event of invalidity but to reimburse the
      contributions made in respect of her during the period of
      compulsory insurance?
                                                                           Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 348 [1992], p. 1.                                                 of the European Communities against the Republic of
(2) OJ L 225 [1986], p. 40.                                                                              Austria
(3) OJ L 46 [1997], p. 20.
                                                                                                    (Case C-358/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 264/31)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                               Austria                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                          (Case C-357/03)                                  Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
                                                                           Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
                         (2003/C 264/30)                                   the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the                          notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter                         necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/269/
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within                       EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an                    requirements for the manual handling of loads where
address for service in Luxembourg.                                               there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
                                                                                 (fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
                                                                                 Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9
                                                                                 of that directive;
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 98/24/                    proceedings.