CELEX: C1997/040/25
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 5 December 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-392/96)

No C 40/ 12            1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8 . 2 . 97
      automatically and without the institution of default               The applicant claims that the Court should :
     proceedings, begins to accrue as soon as the statutory
      time-limit for reimbursement has expired ?
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary
                                                                               measures to ensure the correct transposition of
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 2 .                                       Council Directive 85/337/EEC (') of 27 June 1985 on
                                                                               the assessment of the effects of certain public and
                                                                               private projects on the environment, Ireland has failed
                                                                               to fulfil its obligations under that Directive and in
                                                                               particular Article 12 thereof and under the Treaty,
Appeal brought on 4 December 1996 by Compagnie
                                                                         — order Ireland to pay the costs .
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on
24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T­                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
494/93 between Compagnie Continentale (France ) and the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Article 4 (2) of the Directive and Annex II
                         ( Case C-391 /96 P
                              ( 97/C 40/24 )                             In establishing criteria/thresholds for determining whether
                                                                         or not an environmental impact assessment ('EIA') is
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September                 required for an individual project in project classes
                                                                         Annex II . 1 ( b ) ('projects for the use of uncultivated land
1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture'), Annex
of the European Communities in Case T-494/93 between
                                                                         II . 2 ( a ) (' extration of peat') and Annex II . 1 ( d ) (' initial
Compagnie Continentale ( France ) and the Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court                    afforestation where this may lead to adverse ecological
                                                                         changes and land reclamation for the purposes of
of Justice of the European Communities on 4 December
                                                                         conversion to another type of land use '), there is a
1996 by Compagnie Continentale ( France ), represented by
                                                                         particular need to ensure that areas of importance for
Patrick Chabrier, of 15 Rue Toepffer, Geneva .
                                                                         nature conservation are satisfactorily taken into account .
                                                                         The Commission would contend that, globally considered,
The appellant claims that the Court should :                             the Irish system of thresholds for these project classes does
                                                                         not satisfactorily take such areas into account for a
— set aside the judgment of 24 September 1996 declaring                  number of reasons .
      Compagnie Continentale's action for annullment of
      the Commission's decision of 1 April 1992                          First, the thresholds draw no distinction between areas
      inadmissible ,
                                                                         which have recognized importance and value for nature
                                                                         conservation and areas which do not .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         Second, the thresholds do not take account of the fact that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      areas of importance and value for nature conservation will
                                                                         often be relatively small in relation to the thresholds .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those in Case C-386/96 P (').
                                                                         Third, the thresholds do not take into account the absence
                                                                         in Ireland of other mechanisms which might obviate the
 (') See p. 10 of this Official Journal .                                need for an EIA .
                                                                         Fourth, the thresholds fail to take any or any adequate
                                                                          account of the fact that, incrementally or cumulatively,
                                                                         projects of these classes may create significant
                                                                         environmental effects .
Action brought on 5 December 1996 by the Commission
         of the European Communities against Ireland
                           ( Case C-392/96 )                              Article 2 (3): Exemptions
                               ( 97/C 40/25 )
                                                                          Irish legislation provides for an exemption formula
                                                                          entitling the Minister with powers under the relevant
 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                enactment to dispense with the requirement of an EIA
Justice of the European Communities on 5 December                         where he is satisfied that this is warranted by exceptional
 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      circumstances . This exemption formula does not oblige
 represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, principal legal                    the Minister concerned to consider whether another form
 adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 of assessment would be appropriate and whether the
 Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  information thus collected should be made available to the
 member of the Legal Service , Centre Wagner.                             public, as stipulated under Article 2 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( b ) of the
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97               I hN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 40/ 13
Directive . Furthermore , there is no provision which would                          Directive ') (') to dismiss a female employee, at any
require the Minister concerned to inform the Commission                              time during her pregnancy, as a result of absence
( Article 2 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the Directive ).                                          through illness arising from that pregnancy ?
Article 5 : Information to be supplied by the developer                        ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                     Question 1 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
                                                                                     pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
There is nothing in the Irish legislation that indicates that                        employer to dismiss employees, irrespective of
a decision-maker, before restricting a demand to Article                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
5 ( 2 ), mandatory information only, should consider the                             continued absence ?
relevance or reasonableness of asking for Annex III
optional information . It is the Commission 's contention
that, before so restricting the demand, the decision-maker                2 . ( a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of the
should apply the Article 5 ( 1 ) test as to the relevance and/                       Equal Treatment Directive to dismiss a female
or reasonableness of asking for Annex III information and                            employee as a result of absence through illness
should have concluded that either the information was
                                                                                     arising from pregnancy who does not qualify for
irrelevant (paragraph ( a ) of Article 5 ( 1 )), or the demand                       the right to absent herself from work on account
unreasonable ( paragraph ( b ) of Article 5 ( 1 )). As it stands ,                   of pregnancy or childbirth for the period specified
the Irish legislation leaves the decision-maker entirely free                        by national law because she has not been
to ignore the optional information as a matter of general                            employed for the period imposed by national law,
practice .                                                                           where dismissal takes place during that period ?
Article 7: Information to the other Member States                              ( b ) Does it make any difference to the answer given to
                                                                                     Question 2 ( a ) that the employee was dismissed in
The Irish legislation provides a mechanism whereby local                             pursuance of a contractual provision entitling the
authorities ( the decision-makers ) should notify the Irish                          employer to dismiss employees , irrespective of
Minister for the Environment of an application likely to                             gender, after a stipulated number of weeks of
                                                                                     continued absence ?
have significant effects on the environment in another
Member State. It then allows the Minister to require the
local authority to furnish him with such information and                  H OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
documents as he may specify. However, this latter power
can only be exercised where the other Member State has
sought to be consulted . Furthermore , there appears to be
no explicit duty on the Minister to furnish information to
the other Member State .
 (') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .                                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier by order of that court of 29 November 1996 in the
                                                                          case of Caisse de Pension des Employes Prives v. 1. Dieter
                                                                          Korde , 2 . Rainer Kordel and 3 . Frankfurter Alii an z
                                                                                                     Versicherungs AG
                                                                                                      ( Case C-397/96 )
Reference for a prelimininary ruling by the House of                                                     ( 97/C 40/27 )
 Lords, by order of that court of 28 November 1996, in
     the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited
                             ( Case C-394/96 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                ( 97/C 40/26 )                            European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
                                                                          Trier ( Trier Regional Court ) of 29 November 1996 , which
                                                                          was received at the Court Registry on 12 December 1996 ,
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse de Pension
 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                   des Employes Prives v. 1 . Dieter Kordel , 2 . Rainer Kordel
 of 28 November 1996 , which was received at the Court                    and 3 . Frankfurter Allianz Versicherungs AG on the
 Registry on 9 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                  following question :
 the case of Mrs Mary Brown against Rentokil Limited, on
 the following questions :
                                                                           How is Article 93 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (')
                                                                           to be interpreted ? Does recognition by the Member States
  1 . a ) Is it contrary to Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 5 ( 1 ) of Council        extend      also to the definition        of the content of the
           Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  subrogated claim in another Member State ( in this case ,
           implementation of the principle of equal treatment              the second sentence of Article 232 of the Luxembourg
           for men and women as regards access to                          Code des Assurances Sociales in conjunction with the
           employment, vocational training and promotion,                  relevant Grand Ducal Regulation, under which the claim
           and working conditions ('the Equal Treatment                    to which the pension fund is subrogated is to amount to