CELEX: C2001/173/09
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 February 2001 in Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure not contested — Directive 95/16/EC)

C 173/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             16.6.2001
Bremen for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
before that court between Wolfgang Lange and Georg Schüne-
mann GmbH — on the interpretation of Council Directive
91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation                                               (Second Chamber)
to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the
contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288 p. 32)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola                                                of 14 February 2001
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 February 2001, in which                in Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                    ties v French Republic (1)
it has ruled:
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                           not contested — Directive 95/16/EC)
1.    Article 2(2)(i) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October
      1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the
      conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship
      must be interpreted as not relating to the working of overtime.                                     (2001/C 173/09)
      However, it is clear from Article 2(1) of that Directive that the
      employer is obliged to notify the employee of any term having
      the nature of an essential element of the contract or employment
      relationship and requiring the employee to work overtime                                     (Language of the case: French)
      whenever requested to do so by his employer. That information
      must be notified under the same conditions as those laid down
      by the Directive for the elements expressly mentioned in
      Article 2(2) thereof. It may, where appropriate, by analogy           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      with the rule which applies, in particular, to normal working                               in the European Court Reports)
      hours by virtue of Article 2(3) of the Directive, take the form of
      a reference to the relevant laws, regulations and administrative
      or statutory provisions or collective agreements.                     In Case C-219/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: H. van Lier) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                                                                            Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                            by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
2.    No provision of Directive 91/533 requires an essential element        provisions necessary to comply with European Parliament
      of the contract or employment relationship that has not been          and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the
      mentioned in a written document delivered to the employee or          approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      has not been mentioned therein with sufficient precision to be        lifts (OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to
      regarded as inapplicable.                                             fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Second
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber,
                                                                            R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                                                                            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
3.    Where an employer fails to comply with his obligation under           on 14 February 2001, in which it:
      Directive 91/533 to provide information, that directive does
      not require the national court to apply, or refrain from applying,
      principles of national law under which the proper taking of           1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      evidence is deemed to have been obstructed where a party to the              the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      proceedings has not complied with his legal obligations to                   comply with European Parliament and Council Directive
      provide information.                                                         95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                   of the Member States relating to lifts, the French Republic has
                                                                                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.