CELEX: C2001/212/20
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-201/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Oberste Gerichtshof, of 26 April 2001, in the Case of Maria Walcher against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark

C 212/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by IPK München GmbH                             before the Court of First Instance, was concerned only
against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the                         with the question whether the Commission could estab-
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                           lish that the appellant was in a position to carry out the
European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK                             project satisfactorily, despite the unlawful interventions
München GmbH and the Commission of the European                               of DG XXIII officials. The Court of First Instance erred in
                         Communities                                          law by failing to recognise that.
                       (Case C-199/01 P)
                                                                        (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
                                                                        (2) [1999] ECR I-6795.
                        (2001/C 212/19)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between IPK
München GmbH and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by IPK München
GmbH, represented by H.J. Prieß, Rechtsanwalt.                          Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Oberste Ger-
                                                                        ichtshof, of 26 April 2001, in the Case of Maria Walcher
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen
                                                                                                    Steiermark
1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 (1) in so far as it is
      assumed from paragraph 34 of that judgment onwards                                          (Case C-201/01)
      that points 6 to 12 of the European Commission’s letter
      of 30 November 1993, to which the Decision of the
      European Commission of 3 August 1994 refers, do not                                        (2001/C 212/20)
      belong to the grounds for the contested decision of
      3 August 1994;                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-             of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on 15 May
      ings.                                                             2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria Walcher
                                                                        against Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steier-
                                                                        mark on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        1.    Is it contrary to the objectives of Council Directive
                                                                              80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approxi-
—     Misidentification of the object in dispute: Even for the
                                                                              mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
      Court, the scope of the dispute is bindingly defined by
                                                                              protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of
      the application. The application sought the annulment of
                                                                              their employer if, on account of the principles also applied
      the contested decision in its entirety without limitation.
                                                                              by the Austrian courts on loans made in substitution for
      The contested decision does not contain a limitation to
                                                                              share capital, a shareholder who has no controlling
      points 1 to 6 of the letter of 30 November 1993.
                                                                              influence on the company loses his entitlement to an
      However, the Court of First Instance erroneously proceed-
                                                                              insolvency guarantee payment where, in his capacity as
      ed on the basis that that letter could be divided into two
                                                                              an employee of the company, he does not, after the onset
      parts. Not even the Commission argued at any point that
                                                                              of creditunworthiness which was apparent to him, make
      points 6 to 12 of the letter did not form part of the
                                                                              any serious demand for payment of current wages in
      subject-matter of the dispute, and it became substantively
                                                                              arrears for more than 60 days and/or does not resign
      involved with the applicant’s argument concerning
                                                                              early on the ground that his wages are withheld?
      points 6 to 12. The misidentification of the subject-
      matter of the dispute by the Court of First Instance leads
                                                                        2.    Does this loss of entitlement extend to all unpaid claims
      to a reduction of the legal protection sought by the
                                                                              under the employment relationship or only to those
      applicant;
                                                                              arisen after the fictitious point in time at which an
—     Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 253                  employee who was not a shareholder would, on the
      EC);                                                                    ground that his wages were withheld, have handed in his
                                                                              notice of resignation from the employment relationship?
—     Infringement of the binding authority of the judgment of
      the Court of Justice in Case C-433/97 P (2), referring the
      matter back to the Court of First Instance: In its judgment,      (1) OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.
      the Court of Justice, like the First Chamber of the Court
      of First Instance before it, did not in any way limit the
      subject-matter of the dispute. The reference back by the
      Court of Justice, and thus the subsequent proceedings