CELEX: C2000/163/24
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C- 118/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Travail de Mons (Eighth Chamber) by order of that court of 20 March 2000 in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants

C 163/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                   conserve habitat and avoid erosion, and, moreover, it has
                                                                              failed to avoid habitat deterioration negatively affecting
                                                                              wild bird species of Annex 1 of the Birds Directive as well
                                                                              as regularly occurring migratory species present on the
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to              Complex, the decline of which is not disputed by the Irish
    comply with Article 3 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) in                      authorities.
    respect of the Red Grouse (Lagopus lagopus), and with
    Article 4(4), first sentence, of Directive 79/409/EEC and
    Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) in respectf of the           (1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex Special Protection Area,                     vation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).
    Ireland has failed to comply with these Directives and with          (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
    its obligations under the Treaty,                                        of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
                                                                             22.7.1992, p. 7).
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          de Mons (Eighth Chamber) by order of that court of
                                                                         20 March 2000 in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
                                                                         National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indé-
                                                                                                       pendants
1) Failure to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient
    diversity and area of habitats for Red Grouse                                                  (Case C- 118/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 163/24)
    Having regard to the identification of Red Grouse as one
    of the 12 most threatened breeding bird species in Ireland,          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the dependancy of Red Grouse on hill-land and bog                    European Communities by an order of the Cour de Travail
    habitat, the dependancy of Red Grouse on heather, which              (Labour Court), Mons (Eighth Chamber) of 20 March 2000,
    is known to be seriously affected by overgrazing, the                which was received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2000,
    recognition of the need for hill-land and bog habitat                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
    conservation measures to benefit the Red Grouse, the                 National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
    emergence and persistence of a widespread problem of                 on the following questions:
    sheep overgrazing on hill-land and bog habitat associated
    with Red Grouse since 1981, the ineffectiveness of
                                                                         1. Must Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be
    measures to combat this overgrazing, the evidence of
                                                                              interpreted as being applicable to the situation of a person
    significant decline in the range of the Red Grouse and the
                                                                              covered by social insurance, as a self-employed worker,
    preventive and precautionary principles, the Commission
                                                                              who has instituted legal proceedings against an adminis-
    considers that Ireland has failed to meet its obligations to
                                                                              trative decision of the institution responsible for the social
    safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for
                                                                              security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
    the species in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
                                                                              the EU applying an anti-overlapping rule of European
    79/409/EEC (the Birds Directive):
                                                                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles 12 and 46), that
                                                                              decision having been confirmed by the national court
                                                                              hearing the case in that Member State and the judgment
2) Damage to Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex SPA                                  not having been notified by the parties and therefore
                                                                              remaining subject to appeal, even though a decision given
                                                                              by the CJEC after that judgment, in a similar case,
                                                                              interpreting Articles 12 and 46 of that regulation, held
    Inasmuch as Ireland has allowed a problem of overgrazing                  that a Community anti-overlapping rule should not be
    to occur in the Complex since 1981, it must be considered                 applied in those circumstances in so far as such application
    to have failed to respect Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC             of Article 95a(5) by the national institution responsible
    (the Habitats Directive), and, prior to the coming into force             for the social security of self-employed workers to the
    of that provision, Article 4(4), first sentence, of the Birds             abovementioned insured person, following the judgment
    Directive. To the extent that Ireland relies on State                     of the CJEC, to ensure that the rights of that insured person
    acquisition, the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme                    are reviewed, and Article 95a(5) limit the effects of the
    and related measures to safeguard the Complex, it cannot                  abovementioned CJEC judgment, it being necessary, in
    be considered to have taken all the appropriate measures                  order, in the event of proceedings being brought, to give
    in relation to Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. In                 effect to the said Article 95a(5), for a new application to
    particular, Ireland has not ensured that, over the entire                 be made by the insured with respect to his rights and for a
    area of the Complex, sheep stocking rates are such as to                  new decision to be adopted thereafter?
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/15
2. Does the fact that that institution responsible for the social         Pleas in law and main arguments
     security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
     the EC applied Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to
     1408/71 in the situation described in the first question
     constitute, in the circumstances in which it was applied, a          those set out in Case C-105/00 (2); the implementation period
                                                                          set by the directive expired on 30 December 1998.
     serious infringement of Community law within the mean-
     ing of the case-law of the CJEC where that institution has
     already infringed Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles
                                                                          (1) OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.
     12 and 46), as stated in the judgment of the CJEC of                 (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
     2 August 1993 in a similar case and the social security
     institution recognises that fact in the proceedings and the
     court hearing the case has given a ruling to that effect by
     judgment of 10 February 1999 and where, following
     correspondence between the Commission of the European
     Communities and the Member State, the Minister respon-
     sible for the national social security institution asked the
     latter to regularise the situation of the migrant worker and
     that institution acceded to that request by applying the             Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of
     abovementioned Article 95a(5)?                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on                                    (Case C-120/00)
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons
    and their families moving within the Community (OJ English
    special edition, 1971 (II) p. 416).                                                              (2000/C 163/26)
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service,
Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
                             Luxembourg
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
                           (Case C-119/00)
                                                                          — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                           (2000/C 163/25)                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                               Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                               89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                               down by law, regulation or administrative action in
ties on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                               Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
Communities, represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser,
                                                                               casting activities (1) and/or by failing to inform the Com-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                               mission thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s
                                                                               obligations under that directive;
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities 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
     Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the             The pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to
     Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive                   those set out in Case C-119/00 (2); the implementation period
     89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid            set by the directive expired on 30 December 1998.
     down by law, regulation or administrative action in
     Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
     casting activities (1) and/or by failing to inform the Com-          (1) OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.
     mission thereof, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has                   (2) See p. 15 of this Official Journal.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.