CELEX: C1995/299/20
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Mons, by judgment of that Court of 21 September 1995 in the case of Université Catholique de Louvain v. Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez (Case C-305/95)

No C 299/ 12               EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
     — failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply                     Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission
          with Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Directive , and                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                                                Republic
     — authorizing the creation of a disposal site for special
          waste in Mainhausen and the construction of a                                                   ( Case C-304/95 )
          motorway near Luneburg without observing the                                                      ( 95/C 299/ 19 )
          procedure prescribed in the Directive ,
     — the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
          its obligations under Article 5 and the third                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
          paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and under                    25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
          Articles 2 , 3 , 5 ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ), 8 , 9 and 12(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the   Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
          Directive ;                                                            its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                 at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                             Kirchberg.
     costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
— although the timelimit for the transposition of the
    Directive expired on 3 July 1 988 , the defendant did not                    1 . declare , that by not bringing into force , the laws,
    take any measures until it adopted the 'UVP-Gesetz ' of                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     12 January 1990, which entered into force on 1 August                            comply with Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February
     1990 ,                                                                           1992 amending and updating Directive 77/99/EEC on
                                                                                      health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
— the duty to inform the Commission provided for in                                   meat products and amending Directive 64/433/EEC ('),
    Article 12 ( 2 ) of the Directive also covers rules enacted                       or at least not notifying those provisions to the
    by the Lander and provisions in force prior to the                                Commission within the prescribed period, the Hellenic
    adoption of the Directive; the existence of paragraph 4                           Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
    of     the    UVP-Gesetz            shows       that   the   defendant            and Directive 92/5/EEC ;
    presupposes that provisions enacted by the Lander are
    applicable to the field covered by the Directive ,
                                                                                2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
— paragraph 22 of the UVP-Gesetz provides that
    proceedings already commenced are to be completed in
    accordance with its provisions only where they had not                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    yet been publicly notified when the UVP-Gesetz entered
    into force ,                                                                The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189 of the
                                                                                Treaty requires the Member States to bring into force the
— in the Commission 's view, all the projects set out under                      provisions necessary for transposing into national law the
    the various letters in points 1 to 1 1 of Annex II to the                   directives of which they are the addressees before the expiry
    Directive are to be regarded as 'classes ' within the                       of the period provided therefor and immediately to notify
    meaning of Article 4 of the Directive . Paragraph 3 of the                  those provisions to the Commission . That period expired on
    UVP-Gesetz sets threshold values or criteria for some ,                      1 January 1993 without the Hellenic Republic bringing into
    but not all , of such classes; for the remaining classes , the               force the necessary provisions or indeed notifying those
    UVP-Gesetz does not make any provision for project                           provisions to the Commission .
    assessment in individual cases ,
— although the defendant has specified , in accordance with                      (') OJ No L 57 , n . 1 .
    the Directive, the documents to be submitted by the
    developer, the provisions in question are applicable only
    ' in so far as the . . . said documents are not defined in
    detail in a legislative provision '. The Commission does
    not share the defendant's view that on a proper
    interpretation of the UVP-Gesetz the rules laid down by
    the specific technical legal provisions are to be applied
    only where their requirements at least correspond to
    those of the UVP-Gesetz,                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail,
                                                                                 Mons , by judgment of that Court of 21 September 1995 in
— it cannot be deduced from the documents submitted by                          the case of Universite Catholique de Louvain v. Francine
    the defendant that the obligations imposed by Articles 2 ,                                    Plapied and Danielle Gallez
    3 , 5 ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ), 8 and 9 of the Directive were complied                                           Case C-305 /95 )
    with in the case of the Mainhausen and Luneburg
                                                                                                            ( 95 /C 299/20 )
    projects .
(') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du
 ---pagebreak--- 11 . 11 . 95         fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 299/ 13
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Mons, of 21 September                 provisions necessary to comply with the directives referred
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                     to in the conclusions of the Commission .
26 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Universite Catholique de Louvain ( Catholic University of              (') Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing
Louvain ) v. Francine Plapied and Danielle Gallez on the                     Community measures for the control of avian influenza ( OJ No
following questions :                                                        L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
                                                                       ( 2 ) Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November              1990
'Do supplementary family allowances which are calculated                     concerning public health and animal health problems affecting
                                                                             the production and placing on the market of rabbit meat and
on a flat-rate basis according to the number of children                     farmed game meat ( OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 41 ).
concerned and which an individual employer pays to his
employees , either under the terms of a collective labour
agreement or on a voluntary, unilateral basis, constitute pay
within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?
In the event that the first question is answered in the                Action brought on 27 September 1995 by the Kingdom of
affirmative, if an employer infringes the rule of equal                the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
treatment for men and women contained in that provision ,                                             Communities
are the employees affected entitled under Community law                                            ( Case C-308/95 )
to claim payment of arrears of supplementary family
allowances as from 8 April 1976 , in order to ensure that the                                        ( 95/C 299/22 )
period in respect of which they may bring an action is the
same as that for a comparable right of action under Belgian            An action against the Commission of the European
law ?'                                                                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 27 September 1995 by the
                                                                       Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by J. S. van der
                                                                       Oosterkamp and M. A. Fierstra, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands
                                                                       Embassy, 5 Rue C. M. Spoo .
Action brought on 26 September 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United                         The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court
                             Kingdom                                   should :
                        ( Case C-306/95 )
                          ( 95/C 299/21 )
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission of 28 July 1995
                                                                             concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
                                                                             projects co-financed prior to 1989 by the European
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before                       Regional Development Fund,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1995 by the Commission of the European                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.                                              — Infringement of the Treaty or of certain rules for its
                                                                              implementation and/or infringement of essential
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                  procedural requirements, concerning in particular the
                                                                              provision of a statement of reasons for the decision
1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the measures                  ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), and/or breach of general
     necessary to comply with Council Directives                              principles of Community law: the letter of 28 July 1995
     92/40/EEC (') and 91 /495/EEC ( 2 ) in Northern Ireland,                 from the Commissioner responsible for regional policy
     or in the alternative by failing to inform the Commission                constitutes the final act in the decision-making process,
     forthwith thereof, the United Kingdom has failed to                      by which the Commission reached a definitive decision
     fulfil its obligations under those Directives and in                     concerning the settlement of accounts in respect of
     particular Article 22 thereof and under the Treaty                       the Netherlands infrastructure projects decided on
     establishing the European Community;                                     by the Commission before 1 January 1989 under the
                                                                              European Regional Development Fund ( ERDF ). The
2 . order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .                               Commission 's view that the timelimit of 31 March 1995
                                                                              constitutes a final deadline is based on an incorrect, or at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           least incomprehensible, interpretation of Article 12 of
                                                                              Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall                   amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 4254/88 laying down
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                        provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                     2052/88 as regards the European Regional Development
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                       Fund ( hereinafter 'the 1993 ERDF Regulation'). The
down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January                      way in which the Commission has applied Article 12 of
 1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the                           the 1993 ERDF Regulation in the contested decision,