CELEX: C2001/317/29
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-342/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid by an order of 3 September 2001 in the case of María Paz Merino Gómez against Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.

C 317/16                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Action brought on 12 September 2001 by the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                                 European Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-323/01 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 5 June 2000.
                                                                                                      (Case C-344/01)
( 1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 1.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                                      (2001/C 317/30)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Social No 33 de Madrid by an order of 3 September                            Communities on 12 September 2001 by the Federal Republic
2001 in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino Gómez against                         of Germany represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat
              Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.                        and Moritz Lumma, Oberregierungsrat, Bundesministerium
                                                                             der Finanzen, Graurheindorfter Str. 108, D-53117 Bonn.
                            (Case C-342/01)
                            (2001/C 317/29)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
No 33 de Madrid (Social Court, Madrid) of 3 September 2001,                  1.    Annul the Commissions decision of 11 July 2001
which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September                           (K(2001) 1795 final) excluding from Community finan-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Paz Merino                    cing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
Grómez against Continental Industrias riel Caucho S.A.. The                       under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Madrid asks the Court of Justice                     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1).
to rule on the following questions:
1.      Where collective agreements between an employer and                  2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
        workers’ representatives fix the timing of leave for the
        entire workforce, and where the dates in question coincide
        with those of a worker’s maternity leave, do Article 7(1)
        of Directive 93/104 (1), Article 11 (2) (a) of Directive
        92/85 (2) and Article 5(1) of Directive 76/207 (3) guaran-
        tee that worker’s entitlement to take annual leave during
        a period other than the one agreed, which does not                   Pleas in law and main arguments
        coincide with her period of maternity leave?
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative, what is        —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
        the substantive scope of the entitlement to annual leave?                  (inadequate communication of the facts). The application
        Does it cover exclusively the four weeks’ leave referred to                of conclusions reached on the three Länder which were
        in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/104, or does it extend to                  examined for the purposes of suckler-cow premiums to
        the thirty calendar days laid down by national legislation,                the other Länder which were not examined does not
        in Article 38(1) of Royal Decree-Law 1/95, the Workers’                    appear to be justified per se having regard to the decentrali-
        Statute?                                                                   sed administrative system required by constitutional law
                                                                                   in Germany. The Federal Government, rather, regards the
                                                                                   grounds for refusing the premiums to those Länder which
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
     certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ L 307 of              were not examined in this case to be wholly unfounded
     13.12.1993, p. 18).                                                           on a number of grounds. For that reason, similar
(2) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-                conclusions were not reached in the area of suckler-cow
     tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and                  premiums following very recent studies, that is to say, in
     health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have                       Brandenburg and Niedersachsen in 1996 and in Rhein-
     recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ L 348 of 28.11.1992,            land-Pfalz in 1999.
     p. 1).
(3) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and                Therefore, by reversing the burden of proof so that it
     women as regards access to employment, vocational training and                fell on Germany without any concrete reasons, the
     promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40).              Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to provide
                                                                                   evidence of an infringement of Community law in the
                                                                                   area of suckler-cow premiums.