CELEX: C1997/212/43
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-203/97)

12 . 7. 97                      EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 212/23
            terms or conditions not expressly mentioned                       Action brought on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of
            therein ?                                                         the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                                              of Germany
     ( b ) If so :                                                                                       ( Case C-203/97)
             (i)       Can such terms or conditions be formulated                                           ( 97/C 212/43 )
                       independently by the authorities of a Member
                       State ?
                                                                              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             ( ii ) May quantitative conditions — whether or
                                                                              Communities on 27 May 1997 by the Commission of the
                       not based on Decision No 128 ( ] ) — relating
                                                                              European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
                       to the activities pursued in the different
                                                                              Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                       Member States, turnover and number of
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                       employees be imposed with regard to the
                                                                              Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
                       words ' undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                              254, Kirchberg.
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation
                       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
                                                                              The Commission claims that the Court should :
             ( iii ) In that context may the conditon be imposed
                       that the activities of the employer in the             — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                       different Member States be exactly the same ?                  period the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                                      Commission       Directive     94/1 3/EC ( ! ), the  Federal
             ( iv ) If the conditions mentioned in ( ii ) and ( iii )                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                       cannot be imposed, what conditions may be                      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and
                       imposed ?
             ( v ) Must such conditions — where imposed — be                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                       communicated to the employer before the
                       commencement of the employment ?                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support;
      (c ) If not:                                                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                              put forward in Case C-l 86/97 ( 2 ); the relevant time limit
              (i )     Do the implementing institutions have a                expired on 1 January 1995 .
                       discrection in interpreting the words
                       'undertaking to which he is normally
                                                                               (') OJ No L 92 , 9 . 4 . 1994, p. 27 .
                       attached' in Article 14 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation       ( 2 ) See page 16 of this Official Journal .
                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , on the basis of the
                       judgments of the Court of Justice in Case
                        C-l 9/67 (Van der Vecht ) and Case C-35/70
                        ( Manpower )?
              ( ii ) If so, what is its extent ?
                                                                               Action brought on 29 May 1997 by the Portuguese
                                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European
2 . ( a ) Is a certificate issued by the competent institution                                                Communities
              of a Member State in accordance with Article 11
                                                                                                          ( Case C-204/97 )
              ( 1 ) ( a ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 binding on
              the authorities of another Member State in all                                                 ( 97/C 212/44 )
              circumstances as regards the legal consequences it
              determines ?
                                                                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
       ( b ) If not:                                                            the European Communities on 29 May 1997 by the
               (i)       In what circumstances is it not ?
                                                                                Portuguese Republic, represented by Luis Fernandes, Dr
                                                                                Angelo Sei^a Neves and Dr. Carlos Botelho Moniz, acting
               ( ii ) Can the evidential value of the certificate be­           as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                         rebutted by the authorities of a Member State          the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                         without involving the institution which issued
                         the certificate ?                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               ( iii ) If not, in what must that involvement consist ?          — annul the Decision of the Commission of 6 November
                                                                                       1996 on State aid No 703/95 — France, published in
 (') Decision of the Administrative Commission on Social Security                      the Official Journal of the European Communities
     of Migrant Workers .                                                              No C 70 of 6 March 1997, p. 14;
                                                                                 — order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.