CELEX: C2000/020/33
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-432/99: Action brought on 9 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 20/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                4. (a) Must a Member State’s legislation such as the VBS be
by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the                              deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,                          Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the EC Treaty,
                       Rotterdam District                                        inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of partici-
                                                                                 pants, particularly inland navigation, from the require-
                                                                                 ment to pay the charge?
                         (Case C-431/99)
                                                                            (b) If so, does such aid come within the prohibition of that
                                                                                 provision?
                          (2000/C 20/32)
                                                                            (c) If Question 4(b) is also answered affirmatively, does
                                                                                 the description of aid prohibited under Community
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           law also have consequences under Community law for
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State                           the remuneration which the participants, apart from
(Council of State) of 4 November 1999, received at the Court                     those exempted, are required to pay?
Registry on 8 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,
Rotterdam District on the following questions:
1. (a) Does legislation such as the VBS, in so far as it provides
        for mandatory participation in traffic accompaniment,
        constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services,
        as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 in
        conjunction with Article 59 (now Article 49) of the EC
        Treaty?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 November 1999 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, is it otherwise if participants in the scheme are
        charged for services provided?
                                                                                                 (Case C-432/99)
    (c) Must Question 1(b) be answered differently if that
        charge is levied on participants in the scheme whose
        participation is mandatory, though not on other users                                     (2000/C 20/33)
        such as inland navigation or sea vessels with a length
        of less than 41 metres?
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
2. (a) If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
        constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,         represented by Hendrik van Lier, of its Legal Service, and
        does such restriction then come under the exception             Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
        provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC           Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
        Treaty for provisions justified on grounds of public            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
        security?                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    (b) Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2(a)        The applicant claims that the Court should:
        whether the charge is greater than the actual cost of
        the service provided to the individual vessel?
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
                                                                            any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission
3. If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge                 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    and such restriction is not justified under the exception               tive 96/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC                   Council of 3 September 1996 on energy efficiency require-
    Treaty, can the restriction be justified either because it              ments for household electric refrigerators, freezers and
    merely concerns a ‘sales arrangement’, as laid down in                  combinations thereof, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to
    Keck and Mithouard, and there is thus no question of                    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    discrimination, or because it meets the yardsticks for such
    legislation laid down in other judgments, in particular in
    Gebhard?                                                            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 20/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                  Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon         a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are             upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 3 September               laid down in the directive. That period expired without Ireland
1997 without the Italian Republic having brought into force               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive            directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
referred to in the Commission’s application.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17-22.
                                                                          (2) on the certification of animals and animal products OJ L 13 of
(1) OJ 1996 L 236, p. 36.                                                     16.01.1997, p. 18-30.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 35-36.
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by the Com-                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                    Social Único de Algeciras, by order of that court of
                                                                          10 November 1999 in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez
                                                                                  Melgar against the Municipality of Los Barrios
                          (Case C-437/99)
                                                                                                    (Case C-438/99)
                           (2000/C 20/34)
                                                                                                     (2000/C 20/35)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 November 1999                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
by Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, and by Mr Keir Fitch,                  Único (Social Court), Algeciras, of 10 November 1999, which
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the             was received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1999, for
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as             a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez Melgar
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            against Municipality of Los Barrios, on the following questions:
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                                1. Is Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) sufficiently clear,
                                                                               precise and unconditional to be directly effective?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               2. In providing that ‘Member States shall take the necessary
                                                                               measures to prohibit the dismissal of workers ... [who are
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws regulations or                     pregnant, have given birth or are breastfeeding] during the
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end
                                                                               of the maternity leave ... save in exceptional cases not
    — Directive 95/53/EC of the Council of 25 October 1995                     connected with their condition’, does Article 10 of the
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                   Directive require the Member States to lay down, on a
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (1);            specific and exceptional basis, the available grounds for
                                                                               dismissing a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is
    — Directive 96/93/EC of the Council of 17 December                         breast-feeding, so that they must introduce into national
         1996 (2) laying down the rules to be observed in issuing              legislation, together with the general rules on the
         the certificates required by veterinary legislation;                  extinguishment of employment contracts, a further special,
                                                                               exceptional and more limited set of rules expressly for
                                                                               those cases in which the worker is pregnant, has given
    — Directive 97/61/EC of the Council of 20 October 1997                     birth or is breast-feeding?
         amending the Annex to Directive 91/492/EEC laying
         down the health conditions for the production and                3. What repercussions does Article 10 of the Directive have
         placing on the market of live bi-valve molluscs (3)                   regarding non-renewal by an employer of a fixed-term
                                                                               contract of a woman who is pregnant under the same
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,                        circumstances as prevailed in relation to earlier contracts?
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those                   Does Article 10 affect the protection enjoyed by a pregnant
    Directives, and                                                            woman in the context of temporary employment relation-
                                                                               ships, and if so, in what way, according to what parameters
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                              and to what extent?