CELEX: C2001/095/11
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-50/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Siena, by order of that court of 26 January 2001 in the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

C 95/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.3.2001
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5th December 1995 (1)
—     Set aside the order under appeal and refer the case to the               amending Directive 89/655/EEC (2) concerning the mini-
      Court having jurisdiction in the matter;                                 mum safety and health requirements for the use of work
                                                                               equipment by workers at work and/or failing to inform
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings                 the Commission thereof and
      before both Community Courts.
                                                                         —     condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(1)    The legal definition of the action at first instance
                                                                         Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
       Having regard to the action at first instance, and bearing        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
       in mind the fact that the formal issue of the legal               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
       definition thereof cannot be regarded as precluding the           period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
       admissibility of an action, it appears permissible to argue       expired on 5 December 1998 without Ireland having enacted
       that the grounds set out on that point in the order under         the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
       appeal ought to be censured in their entirety.                    to in the conclusions of the Commission.
(2)    The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance                   (1) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 28.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989, p. 13.
       It is clear that, since this case involves a dispute
       between a Community institution and the member of a
       consultative committee established by that institution,
       the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to deal with
       the dispute.
       It is further evident that, pursuant to Article 91 of             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other           Siena, by order of that court of 26 January 2001 in
       servants of the European Communities, the Court of                the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
       Justice has jurisdiction in any dispute between the                                  Previdenza Sociale (INPS)
       Community and ‘any person to whom these Staff
       Regulations apply’. Since the Court of First Instance
       ruled that it lacked jurisdiction in favour of the Court of                                 (Case C-50/01)
       Justice, the Court of First Instance ought, of its own
       motion, to have ensured that the application was                                            (2001/C 95/11)
       forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Siena
                                                                         (District Court, Siena) of 26 January 2001, which was received
                                                                         at the Court Registry on 5 February 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Milena Castellani v Istituto Nazionale della
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by the Commission                      Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following questions:
        of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         Is the rule precluding aggregation of the accounting value of
                          (Case C-48/01)                                 the special supplementary pay with the payments made to a
                                                                         worker in the reference period (Article 2(4) of Legislative
                          (2001/C 95/10)                                 Decree No 80/1992) compatible — inter alia in the light of
                                                                         past ruling of the Court of Justice concerning that decree —
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                with EEC Directive 987/80 (1), and in particular:
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                  (1) Can that non-aggregability be regarded as conforming
by Ms Nicola Yerrell, Member of its legal Service, acting as                   with the purpose of the directive which appears
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos                  (Article 3(1)) to be to ensure the payment of outstanding
Gómez de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre                  claims in respect of wages arising within a specified time
Wagner, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                                 span (Article 3(2)) and in respect of a certain period
                                                                               (Article 4(1) and (2))? or
The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                                                                         (2) Does that non-aggregability reflect a rule concerning
—     find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under             assistance, not conforming with the social criterion on
      the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  which Directive 987/80 is based?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 95/7
(3) Does that non-aggregability render the directive inoperat-             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      ive or result in its partial disapplication?                         des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale, Nanterre, France, by
                                                                           judgment of that court of 23 November 2000 in the case
(4) Can that non-aggregability be allowed in the context of                of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie
      the power of the Member States to impose a ceiling on                                       des Hauts de Seine
      the guarantee of payment of workers’ claims (Article 3(4)),
      having regard to the fact that the Italian legislature has                                     (Case C-56/01)
      already imposed a ceiling by means of Article 2(2) of the
      legislative decree at issue?                                                                   (2001/C 95/12)
(5) Consequently, must the reference to the ‘maximum                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      amount of the special supplementary pay’ in the said                 European Communities by a judgement of the Tribunal des
      Article 2(2) be regarded as being made merely for formal             Affaires de Sécurité Sociale (Social Security Court), Nanterre,
      or accounting purposes or is it an incorporative reference           of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
      (with the consequent inclusion in Legislative Decree                 Registry on 9 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
      No 80/1992 of the provisions giving effect to the                    case of Patricia Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie
      special wage supplement, including the so-called non-                des Hauts de Seine, on the following question;
      aggregability rule)?
                                                                           ‘Is Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) compatible
(6) Finally, may non-aggregability be regarded as allowed in               with Articles 59 [now, after amendment, Article 49 EC] and
      the context of the power of the Member States to adopt               60 [now Article 50 EC] of the Treaty of Rome? Consequently,
      the measures necessary to avoid abuses (Article 10(a))?              is the Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine
                                                                           entitled to refuse Ms Inizan reimbursement of the costs of
                                                                           psychosomatic pain treatment in Essen, Germany, following
(1) Council Directive 80/987 of 20 October 1980 on the approxi-            an unfavourable opinion from the National Medical Officer?’
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection
    of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer —
    OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.                                                  (1) 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 members of their families moving
                                                                               within the Community (amended and updated version, OJ 1997
                                                                               L 28, p. 4).