CELEX: C2002/097/13
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-55/02: Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

C 97/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
Action brought on 14 February 2002 by the Italian                        The Italian Government considers that it is constrained to
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                     challenge the Commission’s decision in order to prevent the
                              munities                                   definitive nature of that decision from constituting an obstacle
                                                                         to the effects of the judgment to be delivered in Case C-231/00.
                          (Case C-54/02)
                                                                         In addition to challenging the reduction in the advances and
                                                                         in any event the definitive nature of the Commission’s
                          (2002/C 97/12)                                 determination, the Italian Government seeks annulment of the
                                                                         contested decision on the ground that it infringes Articles 3, 5
                                                                         and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1) and inasmuch as (in
                                                                         relation to the 1995/96 period) it provides for reductions in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                advances which are greater than the levies which are to be paid
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             to it.
Communities on 14 February 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Gianni De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato.
                                                                         1995/96 and 1996/97 periods: claim for default interest
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              In calculating the amount of the interest due on the additional
                                                                         levy payable each month for the period following the prescri-
—     annul Commission Decision 2001/889/EC of 12 Decem-                 bed date (1 September 1996 and 1 September 1997 respecti-
      ber 2001 in so far as it:                                          vely), the Commission has correctly excluded from the capital
                                                                         sum the amounts declared to the EAGGF from 1 September
      (a)   provides for a reduction in the advances on agricul-         1996 (and 1997) to December 2001; however, it has not
            tural expenditure, taking into account the interest          taken account of the reductions in the advances made in the
            relating thereto;                                            course of 1997.
      (b) alternatively, provides definitively rather than provi-        For the 1995/96 period, the Commission, working on the
            sionally for a reduction in the advances on agricultu-       basis of the reductions in the advances granted to Italy for
            ral expenditure, taking into account the interest            agricultural expenditure, has already obtained for the assets of
            relating thereto;                                            the Fund the entire amount of the additional levies (indeed, the
                                                                         reduction in the advance was even greater).
      (c)   fails to reimburse to Italy the sum of
            LIT 45 145 363 199 (EUR 23 315 634,29), the
            same having been improperly withheld;                        Likewise, the reduction in the advances for the 1996/97
                                                                         period, although not sufficient to cover the entire amount of
                                                                         the additional levies, was not taken into account in the interest
      (d) incorrectly determines the amount of any interest
                                                                         calculation.
            which may be due to the Fund without taking
            account of the reductions made in the advances;
                                                                         (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(1), p. 218.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
1996/97 period: reduction in advances and refusal of financing
                                                                                                    (Case C-55/02)
In Case C-231/00 Lattepiù the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale per il Lazio has referred for a preliminary ruling
under Article 234 EC a question on the correct interpretation                                       (2002/C 97/13)
of the Community rules applicable in the matter and on
whether the national rules should be disapplied. In those
circumstances, the Commission’s decision to exclude certain
expenditure by Italy from Community financing appears                    An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
unacceptable on account of its definitive nature, which does             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
not seem to take account of the question referred for a                  22 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
preliminary ruling in the pending Case C-231/00, referred to             Communities, represented by Jörn Sack and Miguel França,
above.                                                                   acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.4.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 97/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                                             lic
—     Declare that, by restricting the concept of ‘collective
      redundancies’ to redundancies for structural, technologi-                                       (Case C-59/02)
      cal or cyclical reasons, and by failing to extend the
      concept to redundancies for any other reason not specific
      to the workforce itself, the Portuguese Republic has failed                                    (2002/C 97/14)
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 6 and 7 of
      Directive 98/59/EC; (1)
                                                                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February
                                                                            2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Michel Nolin and Minas Konstantinidis, Legal
                                                                            Advisers.
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare that, by not adopting or, in any event, by failing
                                                                                  to communicate to the Commission (all) the laws,
                                                                                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
The Commission takes the view that the concept of collective                      comply with Council Directive 1999/86/EC (1) of 11 No-
redundancies in Portuguese law does not cover all the cases of                    vember 1999 adapting to technical progress Directive
collective redundancies envisaged by the directive. For exam-                     76/763/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
ple, it does not cover redundancies declared by an employer                       Member States relating to passenger seats for wheeled
for reasons unrelated to the workforce where the undertaking                      agricultural or forestry tractors, the Hellenic Republic has
is wound up or liquidated, sold, the premises burnt down or                       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that
other cases of force majeur, or where the undertaking has                         directive;
ceased trading on the death of its owner. The current situation
not only undermines the protection of workers, it is also                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
manifestly contrary to the principle of legal certainty. Without
calling in question the constitutional provisions which guaran-
tee workers’ right to work, the Commission points out that in
any event that does not make good the inadequate transpo-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
sition of a directive whose purpose is to strengthen the
protection of workers in the event of collective redundancies
and to provide workers with certain guarantees as regards                   In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
observance of the rules and procedure for redundancies.                     directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
Thirdly, by relying on the case law and the rules of Portuguese             each Member State to which they are addressed.
law according to which the directive would not be applicable
to collective redundancies for reasons not specific to the
workforce, since such cases would be time-barred, the Portug-               Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
uese authorities have improperly restricted the scope of the                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
directive. Finally, the Commission considers that to accept the             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
argument that application of the rules laid down in the                     or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
directive is ‘not viable’ in those cases where termination of               Community.
the employment contract which under Portuguese law is
considered to limit rights of action, would amount to acknowl-
edging that a Member State may invoke provisions of domestic                It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
law to justify failure to fulfil its obligations under a Community          measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
directive, which is manifestly contrary to Community law.
                                                                            The Commission records that until now, despite the expiry on
                                                                            1 January 2001 of the period laid down, the Hellenic Republic
(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation         has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
    of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundan-       ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
    cies. OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 297, 18.11.1999, p. 22.