CELEX: C1999/366/10
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 September 1999 in Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public or private projects - Setting of thresholds)

C 366/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18.12.1999
1. Article 18(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993            implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public      and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and                 training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending                 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning               J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitin-
    the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         ho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Edward,
    contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts          Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
    respectively must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting       given a judgment on 16 September 1999, in which it has
    authority is not required to award the contract to the only            ruled:
    tenderer judged to be suitable.
                                                                           The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the EC Treaty
2. Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive               (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
    97/52, can be relied on by an individual before the national           Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does not preclude the making of a
    courts.                                                                lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity
                                                                           leave where that payment is designed to offset the occupational
(1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of their being
                                                                           away from work.
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 September 1999
                                                                                                     (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-218/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil de Prud’hommes du Havre): Oumar Dabo                                                  of 21 September 1999
Abdoulaye and Others v Régie Nationale des Usines
                           Renault SA (1)                                  in Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                      ties v Ireland (1)
(Interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117
to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136                 (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
EC to 143 EC) and of Directives 75/117/EEC and                             the effects of certain public or private projects — Setting of
76/207/EEC — Collective agreement providing for an allow-                                                thresholds)
     ance for pregnant women going on maternity leave)
                                                                                                     (1999/C 366/10)
                          (1999/C 366/09)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Agent: Richard B. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: Michael
                                                                           A. Buckley, assisted by Philip O’Sullivan and Niamh Hyland)
In Case C-281/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil de                     necessary measures to ensure the correct transposition of
Prud’hommes du Havre, France, for a preliminary ruling in the              Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
proceedings pending before that court between Oumar Dabo                   ment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
Abdoulaye and Others and Régie Nationale des Usines Renault                the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), Ireland has failed to
SA — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty                 fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 12
(Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by                thereof, and under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), of Council Directive 75/117/EEC                composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
Member States relating to the application of the principle of              L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) and of                   L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                     judgment on 21 September 1999, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 366/7
1. Declares that, by not adopting, for the classes of projects covered       Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
    by points 1(d) and 2(a) of Annex II to Council Directive                 of the Chamber, P. Jann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón
    85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects              and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
    of certain public and private projects on the environment, the           Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 Sep-
    measures necessary to transpose Article 4(2) of that directive           tember 1999, in which it has ruled:
    correctly, and by not transposing Articles 2(3), 5 and 7 thereof,
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                             1. On a proper construction of Article 93(1)(a) of Council Regu-
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                   lation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application
                                                                                 of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
3. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                              persons and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                 Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
                                                                                 (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, where an injury has been
                                                                                 sustained in the territory of a Member State and has given rise
(1) OJ No C 40 of 8.2.1997.                                                      to the payment of social security benefits to the victim or those
                                                                                 entitled under him by a social security institution (within the
                                                                                 meaning of that regulation) of another Member State, the rights
                                                                                 of the victim, or those entitled under him, against the person who
                                                                                 caused the injury and to which that institution may be subrogated,
                                                                                 and the requirements which must be satisfied to enable an action
                                                                                 in damages to be brought before the courts of the Member State
                                                                                 where the injury was sustained, are to be determined in accordance
                                                                                 with the law of that State, including any applicable rules of
                                                                                 private international law.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    2. On a proper construction of Article 93(1)(a) of Regulation
                                                                                 No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
                                                                                 No 2001/83, the subrogation of a social security institution
                      of 21 September 1999                                       (within the meaning of that regulation) governed by the law of a
                                                                                 Member State to the rights of the victim, or those entitled under
in Case C-397/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        him, against a person who, in the territory of another Member
the Landgericht Trier): Caisse de Pension des Employés                           State, caused an injury which gave rise to the payment by that
Privés v Dieter Kordel, Rainer Kordel, Frankfurter Allianz                       institution of social security benefits, and the extent of the rights
                       Versicherungs AG (1)                                      to which that institution is subrogated, are to be determined in
                                                                                 accordance with the law of the Member State to which the
                                                                                 institution belongs, provided always that the exercise of the right
(Social security — Institution responsible for benefits —                        to subrogation provided for by that law cannot exceed the rights,
  Right of action against liable third party — Subrogation)                      under the law of the Member State where the injury was
                                                                                 sustained, of the victim, or those entitled under him, against the
                                                                                 person responsible for causing the injury.
                          (1999/C 366/11)
                   (Language of the case: German)                            3. It is for the court hearing an action to identify and apply the
                                                                                 relevant provisions of the legislation of the Member State to
                                                                                 which the institution responsible for benefits belongs, even if
                                                                                 those provisions exclude or limit the subrogation of such an
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           institution to the rights of the recipient of the benefits against the
                   in the European Court Reports)                                person who caused the injury, or exclude or limit the exercise of
                                                                                 those rights by the institution so subrogated.
In Case C-397/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Trier
(Regional Court, Trier), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Caisse de
Pension des Employés Privés and Dieter Kordel, Rainer Kordel,                (1) OJ No C 40 of 8.2.1997.
Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG — on the interpretation
of Article 93 (1) (a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
bers of their families moving within the Community, as
amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — the