CELEX: C1999/100/26
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-49/99 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-38/98 Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the European Union

C 100/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.4.1999
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission               Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of             the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
                         Luxembourg                                Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                        (Case C-47/99)                             Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       (1999/C 100/24)
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                that the Court should:
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of               Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                     to adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Gouloussis, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an                    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos              measures necessary in order fully to comply with
Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                       concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims                      working time (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
that the Court should:                                                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
                                                                       under that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
    adopt, alternatively to communicate to the                     Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               costs.
    measures necessary in order fully to comply with
    Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
    protection of young persons at work (1), the Grand             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
    directive;                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                   directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
    costs.                                                         down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
                                                                   in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                   the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                 force the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
                                                                   directive referred to in the Commission's application.
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,       (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
directive referred to in the Commission's application.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 12 February 1999 by Associazione
 1                                                                 Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
( ) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
                                                                   Vincenzo Di Giovine against the order made on
                                                                   8 December 1998 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended
                                                                   Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-38/98 Associazione
                                                                   Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and
                                                                     Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                          (Case C-49/99 P)
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
of the Europan Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                     (1999/C 100/26)
                         Luxembourg
                        (Case C-48/99)
                                                                   An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of
                       (1999/C 100/25)                             the European Communities on 12 February 1999 by
                                                                   Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco
                                                                   Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine, represented by Luigi
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                Filippo Paolucci and Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/15
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde,                the case of Jean-Marie Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par
against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the                       reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA),
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                  Association GeÂneÂrale des Institutions de Retraite des
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-38/               Cadres (AGIRC), Union Interprofessionnelle de Retraite
98 Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco                de l'Industrie et du Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale
Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the                       Interprofessionnelle de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS),
European Union.                                                        Association des ReÂgimes de Retraite CompleÂmentaire
                                                                       (ARRCO) on the following question:
The appellants claim that the Court should set aside the               Is Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which asserts the
Court of First Instance's order of 8 December 1998 in                  principle of equal pay for men and women, applicable to
Case T-39/98 by declaring the application to be admissible             the supplementary retirement pension schemes of AGIR
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a           and ARRCO and does it prohibit them from
decision on the substance.                                             discriminating between men and women in respect of the
                                                                       age at which they are entitled to a survivor's pension
                                                                       following the death of their spouse?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The legal effects of the contested regulation (1) are direct
inasmuch as its operative provision does not require any
subsequent measure of implementation by a Community
institution or a national authority.                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo per la Basilicata (Administrative Tribunal
                                                                       of the Basilicata region) by order of that court of
That provision adversely affects the appellants                        22 October 1998, in the case of Massimo Triumbari v.
individually' and in a manner which distinguishes them                Questore della provincia di Potenza (Chief of Police of the
from any other producer.                                               province of Potenza) and the Minister of Finance and the
                                                                                          Minister of the Interior
                                                                                               (Case C-51/99)
It follows      that   the   application   must     be  declared                              (1999/C 100/28)
admissible.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    authorising Portugal to grand aid to sugar beet producers and      European Communities by order of 22 October 1998,
    abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year         which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February
    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).                                      1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Massimo
                                                                       Triumbari v. Questore della provincia di Potenza and the
                                                                       Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services
                                                                       preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in
                                                                       view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                prevent fraud that justify it?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Paris, by judgment of
that court of 12 January 1999 in the case of Jean-Marie
Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs
Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA), Association GeÂneÂrale des
Institutions de Retraite des Cadres (AGIRC), Union
Interprofessionnelle de Retraite de l'Industrie et du
Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale Interprofessionnelle               References for preliminary rulings from the Cour du
de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS), Association des ReÂgimes            Travail de LieÁge (13th Chamber) by judgments of that
            de Retraite CompleÂmentaire (ARRCO)                        court of 2 February 1999 in the cases of Office National
                                                                       des Pensions v. Gioconda Camarotto and Office National
                         (Case C-50/99)
                                                                                    des Pensions v. Giuseppina Vignone
                        (1999/C 100/27)                                                (Case C-52/99 and C-53/99)
                                                                                              (1999/C 100/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Grande Instance (Regional Court) (First Chamber), Paris,               European Communities by judgments of the 13th
of 12 January 1999, which was received at the Court                    Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in              LieÁge, of 2 February 1999, which were received at the