CELEX: C2001/173/50
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-160/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

16.6.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/29
      harmonised at Community level may be subject to                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
      provisions justified in the general interest such as rules
      concerning organisation of the profession, qualification            —     set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
      and professional conduct, the Commission considers that                   European Communities of 30 January 2001;
      the French legislation lays down disproportionate and
      excessively restrictive conditions for the exercise in France       —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs, with
      of the profession in question by intellectual property                    all the legal consequences which that entails.
      advisers lawfully established in another Member State and
      supplying services in France on an isolated occasion.
      Other measures — less restrictive than mandatory entry              Pleas in law and main arguments
      on a register preceded by an examination — could be
      envisaged, for example:                                             —     Error of law: given the structure of the appellant com-
                                                                                pany’s production chain, which is unique in the south-
      1.    a requirement to practice under the home-country                    west, the Court of First Instance should have specifically
            title;                                                              examined whether, as at the date of its adoption, the
                                                                                contested regulation particularly affected the appellant.
      2.    a requirement that the person practising the pro-
            fession produces his qualification;                           —     Distortion of the appellant’s claims.
                                                                          —     Absence of a sufficient statement of reasons for the ruling
      3.    a declaration system (such as that provided for in                  on the plea alleging disregard of the right to seek effective
            Article 22 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the                   relief by bringing proceedings: the contested order does
            mutual recognition of architects’ qualifications) (2).              not deal with the appellant’s argument that the Com-
                                                                                mission’s interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation
—     Infringement of Article 49 EC by imposing residence or                    No 2081/92 (1), to the effect that that article restricts the
      a place of business in France as a condition for the supply               right to object to the procedure at Member State level,
      of services there on an isolated occasion.                                disregards the right to seek effective relief by bringing
                                                                                proceedings.
                                                                          —     Misinterpretation of Article 7 of Regulation No 2081/92:
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                  disregard by the Community legal order of the guaranteed
(2) Council Directive 85/384/EEC on the mutual recognition of                   right to seek effective relief by bringing proceedings,
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications          which constitutes a general legal principle: the effect of a
    in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective             failure to act on the part of a Member State must be such
    exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide               as to permit an undertaking which otherwise fulfils the
    services (OJ No L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15).
                                                                                admissibility requirements laid down by Article 7(4) to
                                                                                raise an objection with the Commission.
                                                                          (1) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of
                                                                              geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
                                                                              products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
Appeal brought on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste
against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Con-
queste and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht
                                                                          Leipzig by order of that court of 30 March 2001 in the
                         (Case C-151/01 P)                                    case of Karen Mau against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                          (2001/C 173/49)                                                           (Case C-160/01)
An appeal against the order made on 30 January 2001 by the                                          (2001/C 173/50)
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-215/00 between S.C.E.A. La Conqueste                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and the Commission of the European Communities was                        European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              (Social Court, Leipzig) of 30 March 2001, received at the Court
ties on 9 April 2001 by S.C.E.A. La Conqueste, represented by             Registry on 12 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and F. Thiriez, avocats, with an                 of Karen Mau against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal
address for service in Paris.                                             Labour Office) on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/30               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.6.2001
1.   Does Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III provide             Question 1
     for a date within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Council
     Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     to the protection of employees in the event of the                Is Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
                                                                       of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
     insolvency of their employer?
                                                                       to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State
                                                                       which excludes Turkish workers from eligibility to the general
2.   Has the Federal Republic of Germany effectively limited           assembly of a chamber of workers?
     the liability of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in accordance
     with Article 4 of Directive 80/987/EEC?
3.   Is the Federal Republic of Germany liable to pay damages          Question 2
     to the plaintiff on account of defective implementation
     of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Is Article 10(1) of
                                                                       Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September
4.   Does the Court hold to its view that the date to be taken         1980 on the development of the Association directly appli-
     as the basis for determining the reference period is that         cable Community law?
     of the request for the opening of proceedings?
5.   Is the calculation of the insolvency benefit period pro-
     vided for in Paragraph 183(1) of Sozialgesetzbuch III
     compatible with Article 141 EC?
6.   In the case of claimants who are on child raising leave, is
     the day before that leave was taken the relevant date for
     the purposes of Article 3(2) of Directive 80/987/EEC?
                                                                       Action brought on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
(1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23.                                                                  Luxembourg
                                                                                               (Case C-174/01)
                                                                                               (2001/C 173/52)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungs-               ties on 23 April 2001 by the Commission of the European
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 March 2001 in the              Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting
election proceedings brought by the electoral group                    as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und Grüne
                   GewerkschafterInnen/UG’
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should
                         (Case C-171/01)
                                                                       —     Declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of plans
                         (2001/C 173/51)                                     for the decontamination and/or disposal of inventoried
                                                                             equipment and the PCBs contained therein, in accordance
                                                                             with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
European Communities by an order of the Verfassungsgerichts-                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
hof (Constitutional Court, Vienna) of 2 March 2001, which                    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
was received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2001, for a                   obligations under that directive;
preliminary ruling in the election proceedings brought by the
electoral group ‘Gemeinsam Zajedno/Birlikte Alternative und
Grüne GewerkschafterInnen/UG’ on the following questions:              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.