CELEX: C2002/261/05
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-289/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht München by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH against A & R Gastronomie GmbH

26.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 261/3
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                          gericht by order of that Court of 21 March 2002 in the
                                                                               case of the Land of Brandenburg against Ursula Sass
—     declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary                                 (Case C-284/02)
      to ensure a correct transposition and application of
      Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of 4 May 1976 on                                           (2002/C 261/04)
      pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
      charged into the aquatic environment of the Community,
      Ireland has failed to comply with Directive 76/464/EEC              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      and in particular Articles 7 and 9 thereof and with its             European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
      obligations under the EC Treaty;                                    of 21 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 2 August
                                                                          2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Land of
                                                                          Brandenburg against Ursula Sass on the following question:
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                          Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141 EC) and
                                                                          Directive 76/207/EEC ( 1) prohibit, in a provision of a collective
                                                                          agreement under which periods during which an employment
                                                                          relationship is in abeyance do not count towards the qualifying
                                                                          period, the exclusion of the period during which the employ-
                                                                          ment relationship was in abeyance because the employee
                                                                          concerned, on the expiry of the eligible eight-week period of
                                                                          protection pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Mutterschutzgesetz
                                                                          (Maternity Protection Law), claimed maternity leave pursuant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           to Paragraph 244(1) of the Labour Code of the German
                                                                          Democratic Republic (AGB-DDR) of 16 June 1977 (GBl. I,
                                                                          p. 185) until the end of the 20th week after confinement?
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 39, p. 40.
The Commission submits that, contrary to Articles 7 and 9 of
the Directive, Ireland has generally failed to reduce pollution
caused by phosphorus where this was already evident at the
time of adoption of the Directive and to prevent its emergence
and increase elsewhere. Furthermore, in the Commission’s
view, Ireland’s quality objectives for phosphorus, introduced             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
in 1998, and Irish measures with regard to authorisation of               richt München by order of that Court of 25 July 2002 in
discharges do not comply with the requirements of Articles 7              the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH against A & R
and 9 of the Directive. In addition, the Commission considers                                   Gastronomie GmbH
that Ireland’s adopted programmes for the reduction of
phosphorous pollution suffer from significant shortcomings.                                       (Case C-289/02)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 261/05)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The Commission also submits that Ireland has failed to finalise           European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
and adequately implement pollution reduction programmes                   München (Munich Higher Regional Court) of 25 July 2002,
for List II substances other than phosphorus and/or to                    received at the Court Registry on 9 August 2002, for a
communicate programme summary results for these sub-                      preliminary ruling in the case of A.M.O.K. Verlags GmbH
stances.                                                                  against A & R Gastronomie GmbH on the following question:
                                                                          Are Articles 49 and 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
                                                                          decision of a national court in accordance with which, in a
                                                                          Member State (domestic territory), the maximum amount of a
( 1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.                                          claim for reimbursement of the costs of the services of a lawyer
                                                                          of a different Member State in domestic proceedings and of an
                                                                          Einvernehmensanwalt (domestic lawyer acting in conjunction
                                                                          with the foreign lawyer) is the sum of the costs including VAT
                                                                          which would have been incurred in the case of representation
                                                                          by a domestic lawyer?