CELEX: C1995/229/33
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 20 June 1995, in the case of The Queen against the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte: Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others (Case C-241/95)

2 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/ 15
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event by                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     failing to communicate, the laws, regulations and                 in Case C-234/95 ( 2 ); the period prescribed for
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                implementation of the Directive expired on 1 July 1992 .
     Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (*) of 20 July 1993
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man         (') OJ No L 189 , 20 . 7. 1990 , p. 17 .
     and    the   environment      of   substances   notified  in      ( 2 ) See page 13 of this Official Journal .
     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that Directive and under the EC Treaty,
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de
                                                                       Metz, by judgment of that court of 3 1 May 1 995 , in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Remy Schmit, the civil parties claiming
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    damages being Robert Vergobbio and Salvatore La
                                                                                                     Mancusa
Article 1 8 9 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                                                 Case C-240/95 )
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, means that Member                                           95/C 229/32 )
States are under an obligation to comply with the time limits
laid down in those directives for their transposition. On the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 31 October                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel
1993 , the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions             Metz ( Court of Appeal ), Metz, of 31 May 1995 , which was
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the             received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1995 , for a
form of order sought by the Commission .                               preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Remy
                                                                       Schmit, the civil parties claiming damages being Robert
(') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                Vergobbio and Salvatore La Mancusa, on the following
                                                                       question :
                                                                       Does Article 30 of the EEC Treaty preclude national
                                                                        legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles,
                                                                       which causes the administrative authorities and traders of a
                                                                        Member State to consider that, in the case of two motor
Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the                 vehicles of the same model and make, placed on the market
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                    on the same date after 1 July , one vehicle may be held out as
                         ( Case C-239/95 )
                                                                        falling under the model-year date of the following calendar
                                                                        year whereas the other, manufactured in another Member
                            95/C 229/31 )                               State and the subject of parallel importation, may not ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                   20 June 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte:
                                                                                      Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others
 The Commission claims that the Court should :                                                    Case C-241 /95 )
                                                                                                  ( 95/C 229/33 )
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative measures needed to comply with Council            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 ( 1 ) on the                 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating          Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 20 June 1995 , which
       to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of             was received at the Court Registry on 10 July 1995 , for a
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
       Directive, in particular Article 16 ;                             Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte :
                                                                         Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others, on the following
 2 . in the alternative, declare that, in any event, by failing to       questions :
       inform the Commission of such measures forthwith, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations           1 . Is Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )
       under those provisions;                                                No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                              rules for the application of the Council Regulation ( EC )
 3 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          No 130/94 with regard to the import arrangements for
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/ 16             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2 . 9 . 95
      frozen beef falling within CN code 0202 and products                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court,
      falling within CN code 0206 29 91 (*) invalid and                   Dublin, by decision of that court of 5 April 1995 , in the case
      contrary to EC Law to the extent that it required                   of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue
      operators seeking to qualify for 1994 quota referred to                    Commissioners and the Department of Finance
      in that sub-Article on the basis of their past beef exports                                    Case C-243/95 )
      to have exported at least 150 tonnes in the previous year,
      rather than 110 tonnes as had been required in 1993 ? In                                       ( 95/C 229/34 )
      particular, is Article 1 ( 2 ) invalid and contrary to EC law
      as :
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by a decision of the Labour Court,
      ( a ) exceeding the powers conferred upon the
                                                                          Dublin of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
             Commission by Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                          Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
             No 130/94 of 24 January 1994 opening and
                                                                          of Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton against the Revenue
             providing for the administration of a Community
                                                                          Commissioners and the Department of Finance, on the
             tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals
                                                                          following questions :
             falling within CN code 0202 and products falling
             within CN code 0206 29 91 (2 );
                                                                          In circumstances in which far more female workers than
      ( b ) infringing the principle of proportionality;                  male workers spend part of their working lives in a
                                                                          job-sharing capacity:
      ( c ) infringing      the       principle    of     legitimate
             expectations;
                                                                          (a ) Does a prima-facie case of indirect discrimination arise
                                                                                where job-sharing workers who convert to full-time
      ( d ) infringing the duty to give adequate reasons                        work are given credit for incremental progression on
             pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty; and/or                   the scale of pay for full-time staff by reference to actual
                                                                                time worked such that, while the benefits awarded to
      ( e ) having been adopted without proper consultation                     them are fully pro-rated to those awarded to staff who
             of the Beef Management Committee, contrary to                      have always worked full-time, they are placed at lower
             Article 4 of Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94 and                       points on the full-time scale than comparators who are
             Article 27 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 805/68 of the                  in all respects similar to them except that they have
             Council of 27 June 1968 on the common                              worked continuously on a full-time basis ?
             organization of the market in beef and veal ( 3 )?
                                                                                In other words, is the principle of equal pay, as defined
                                                                                in Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975
2 . Is Article 2 (2 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 214/94 invalid                    on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      and contrary to EC law, to the extent that it excludes                    relating to the application of the principle of equal pay
      companies arising from mergers where each part has                        for men and women ( J ), contravened, if employees,
      rights pursuant to Article 1 ( 2 ) of that Regulation from                who convert from job-sharing to full-time work,
      the opportunity to cumulate their past trading                            regress on the incremental scale and hence on their
      performance ? In particular, does Article 2 ( 2 ) violate:                salary scale, due to the application by the employer of
                                                                                the criterion of service calculated by time worked in a
       ( a ) the principle of non-discrimination, in so far as                  job ?
             companies deriving their rights from Article 1 ( 1 ) of
             that Regulation can merge and cumulate their past
             trading performance for the purpose of obtaining             ( b ) If so, does the employer have to provide special
                                                                                justification for recourse to the criterion of service,
             quota ; whereas companies deriving their rights
             from Article 1 (2 ) cannot; and/or                                 defined as actual time worked, in awarding incremental
                                                                                credit .
       ( b ) the guarantee referred to in the second recital to
             Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94 of continuing access to           (c ) If so, can a practice of incremental progression by
             quota by all interested operators within the                       reference to actual time worked be objectively justified
              Community ?                                                       by reference to factors other than the acquisition of a
                                                                                particular level of skill and experience over time ?
(') OJ No L 27, 1.2 . 1994, p . 46 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 22 , 27. 1 . 1994, p . 3 .                                   (!) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p . 19 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 148 , 28 . 6 . 1968 , p . 24 .