CELEX: C2004/059/32
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-16/04: Action brought on 20 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

6.3.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 59/19
3.    Must Directive 2002/2/EC be interpreted as meaning that                   as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, must the definition of
      its application, and therefore its effectiveness, is subject              working time set out in the directive be considered to
      to the adoption of a positive list of feed materials                      apply exclusively to the Community thresholds estab-
      containing their specific names, as set out in the tenth                  lished by the directive or must it be considered to have
      recital to the preamble and the Commission Report                         general scope, applying also to the thresholds which,
      (COM2003 178) (2) dated 24 April 2003 or must the                         while adopted under the various national legal orders
      implementation of the directive in the Member States                      with a view to transposing the directive, may in fact be
      must take place before the adoption of the positive list of               set — as they have been in France in the interest of
      feed materials laid down by the directive, with reference                 employee protection — at a level affording greater
      to a list of the feed materials contained in the compound                 protection than the thresholds established by the direc-
      feedingstuffs by the names and generic definitions of their               tive?
      commodity classes?
                                                                          2.    To what extent could a strictly proportional system of
4.    Is Directive 2002/2/EC to be regarded as unlawful on                      equivalence, which involves calculating the total number
      the grounds of infringement of the principle of equal                     of hours in attendance before applying a weighting
      treatment and non-discrimination to the detriment of                      mechanism to them which reflects even the very least
      feedingstuff producers when compared with the pro-                        work-intensive periods during periods of inactivity, be
      ducers of foodstuffs for human consumption in so far as                   considered compatible with the objectives of the Working
      the former are subject to rules requiring indications of the              Time Directive?
      quantities of feed materials in compound feedingstuffs?
(1) OJ L 63 of 6.03.2002, p. 23.                                          (1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
(2) Not published.                                                            certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ L 307 of
                                                                              13.12.1993, p. 18).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
by order of that Court of 3 December 2003 in the case of
Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail,
Fédération nationale des syndicats des services de santé                  Action brought on 20 January 2004 by the Commission
et des services sociaux CFDT and Fédération nationale de                  of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
l’action sociale Force Ouvrière against Secrétariat général                                          lic of Germany
du gouvernement; Intervener: Union des fédérations et
syndicats nationaux d’employeurs sans but lucratif du
           secteur sanitaire, social et médico-social                                                (Case C-16/04)
                           (Case C-14/04)                                                            (2004/C 59/32)
                          (2004/C 59/31)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ties on 20 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Council              Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter
of State) of 3 December 2003, received at the Court Registry              Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Luxembourg.
Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail, Fédér-
ation nationale des syndicats des services de santé et des
services sociaux CFDT and Fédération nationale de l’action
sociale Force Ouvrière against Secrétariat général du gouverne-           The applicant claims that the Court should:
ment; Intervener: Union des fédérations et syndicats nationaux
d’employeurs sans but lucratif du secteur sanitaire, social et            1.    Declare that
médico-social (Union of national federations and unions of
non-profit-making employers in the health, social and medico-
social sectors) on the following questions:                                     a)    by virtue of the fact that, contrary to the require-
                                                                                      ments of Community law,
1.    In the light of the purpose of the Working Time
      Directive (1), namely to lay down minimum safety and                            —     § 30(4) VBG 1/GUV.01 permits sliding doors
      health requirements for the organisation of working time,                             and revolving doors as emergency doors,
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/20                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
            —    § 1(1), § 3(1), § 35 and § 37 of the Muster-             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                 bauordnung do not contain any sufficiently
                 clear workplace or protection rules for sky-
                 lights, and
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
            —    § 3(1) point 1, and § 20 of the Arbeitsstätten-
                 verordnung do not contain sufficiently binding
                 rules for loading ramps,
                                                                          The period prescribed for the transposition of the Directive
      b)    and also by failing to inform the Commission of the           into domestic law expired on 27 November 2002.
            amendment of the laws at issue, the Federal Republic
            of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
            Articles 3 and 10 of Council Directive 89/654/                (1) OJ L 309 of 27.11.2001, p. 1.
            EEC (1) of 30 November 1989 concerning the mini-
            mum safety and health requirements for the work-
            place (first individual directive within the meaning
            of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      of the proceedings.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (Case C-20/04)
The period for implementing the directive expired on
31 December 1992 without the Federal Republic of Germany
having adopted the necessary provisions in order to comply                                         (2004/C 59/34)
with its obligations under Article 3 in conjunction with
Annex I, point 4.4, third sentence, point 10.1, first sentence,
point 10.2 and point 14.1 of the directive.
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
(1 ) OJ 1989 L 393, p. 1.
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 January
                                                                          2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Action brought on 21 January 2004 by the Commission                       the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain
                                                                          1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                           (Case C-17/04)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2002/50/EC of 6 June 2003
                                                                                adapting to technical progress Council Directive 1999/
                           (2004/C 59/33)                                       36/EC on transportable pressure equipment (1), or, in any
                                                                                event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                                French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                       that directive;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 Janu-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana of the Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
      Directive 2001/80/EC (1) of the European Parliament and             1 January 2003.
      of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants and in any event by failing to com-               (1) OJ 2002 L 149, p. 28.
      municate those measures to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;