CELEX: C2002/191/35
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-225/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March 2002 in the case of Rosa García Blanco against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social

10.8.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 191/21
     waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent                   comply fully with Directive 98/84/EC (1) of the European
     authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9               Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on
     of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation           the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of,
     is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?                     conditional access, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
2.   Does Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by
     Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     with Article 9 of Directive 75/442 or with any other
     provision of the same directive, preclude a Member State
     which has not adopted within the period prescribed one
     or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable               Pleas in law and main arguments
     disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
     permits to operate waste disposal installations such as
     landfills?
                                                                        In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                        directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3.   Does Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by               each Member State to which they are addressed.
     Directive 91/156, mean that the plan or plans relating in
     particular to ‘suitable disposal sites or installations’ must
     be drawn up not later than 1 April 1993, or does it mean           Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     that they must be drawn up within a reasonable period,             to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
     which may exceed the period prescribed for transposing             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
     the Directive into national law?                                   or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                        Community.
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 28.3.1991, p. 32.                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law or, of course,
                                                                        notified such measures to the Commission.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-219/02)
                        (2002/C 191/34)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March
                                                                        2002 in the case of Rosa Garcı́a Blanco against Instituto
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                                                 la Seguridad Social
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 June
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                (Case C-225/02)
represented by Maria Patakia and Niels Bertil Rasmussen, of its
Legal Service.
                                                                                                   (2002/C 191/35)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,             (Social Court) No 3 of Orense of 30 March 2002, received at
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.8.2002
the Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling           Appeal brought on 1 July 2002 by the International and
in the case of Rosa Garcı́a Blanco against Instituto Nacional de       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) against the
la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad              order of 18 April 2002 of the Fourth Chamber of the
Social on the following questions:                                     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-238/00 between (1) the International and Euro-
                                                                       pean Public Services Organisation (IPSO), (2) the Union
                                                                       of Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.) and the
                                                                                            European Central Bank
1.   Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty on
     European Union (Article 6 and Articles 48 to 52 of
     the Treaty establishing the European Community) and                                       (Case C-241/02 P)
     Article 45 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
     of 14 June 1971, preclude a national provision under
     which retirement contributions which the Organismo                                         (2002/C 191/36)
     Gestor del Seguro del Desempleo paid on behalf of a
     worker for the period during which she was receiving
     certain unemployment benefits, are not taken into
     account for the purposes of covering the various qualify-         An appeal against the order of 18 April 2002 of the Fourth
     ing periods established in the national legislation and of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     giving entitlement to the old-age pension, when, because          Communities in Case T-238/00 between (1) the International
     of the long period of unemployment which it is sought             and European Public Services Organisation (IPSO), (2) the
     to protect, it is absolutely impossible for that worker to        Union of Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.) and the
     claim credit for retirement contributions other that those        European Central Bank was brought before the Court of Justice
     which have been invalidated by law, with the result that          of the European Communities on 1 July 2002 by the
     only workers who have exercised the right to freedom of           International and European Public Services Organisation
     movement are affected by that provision of national law           (IPSO), represented by Boris Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt, Roth
     and are unable to qualify for the national retirement             Rechtsanwälte, Eckenheimer Landstraße 38, D-60318 Frank-
     pension, despite the fact that, under Article 45 of               furt am Main, with an address for service at the offices of Marc
     the aforementioned (EEC) Regulation, those qualifying             Glesener, Chairman of the Association Luxembourgeoise des
     periods would have been regarded as completed?                    Employés des Banques et d’Assurances, 29 Avenue Monterey,
                                                                       B.P. 325, L-2013, Luxembourg.
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
2.   Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty on
     European Union (Article 6 and Articles 48 to 52 of
     the Treaty establishing the European Community) and               1.    set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
     Article 48(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                     18 April 2002 in Case T-238/00 (1), notified to the
     Council of 14 June 1971, preclude national provisions                   appellants on 26 April 2002;
     under which retirement contributions which the Orga-
     nismo Gestor del Seguro de Desempleo paid on behalf of            2.    annul the decision of the European Central Bank of 7 July
     a worker for the period during which she was receiving                  2000;
     certain unemployment benefits, are not taken into
     account for the purposes of considering whether ‘the              3.    order the European Central Bank to pay the costs of the
     total insurance or residence periods covered under the                  proceedings.
     legislation of that State amounts to one year’, when,
     because of the long period of unemployment which it is
     sought to protect, it is absolutely impossible for that
     worker to claim credit for retirement contributions
     other than those which fell due and were paid during              Pleas in law and main arguments
     unemployment, so that only workers who have exercised
     the right to freedom of movement are affected by that
     provision of national law and are unable to qualify for           In the contested order, the Court of First Instance incorrectly
     the national retirement pension, despite the fact that,           applied Community law by failing to observe the principle of
     under Article 48(1) of the aforementioned EEC Regu-               effective judicial protection (Articles 6 and 13 of ECHR and
     lation, the national Organismo Gestor could not be                the constitutional traditions of the Member States). It failed
     exempt from the obligation to award national benefits?            to observe the principle of effective judicial protection by
                                                                       incorrectly interpreting the expression ‘individual concern’ in
                                                                       paragraph four of Article 230 EC. The Court of First Instance
                                                                       defines the class of ‘all other persons’ too narrowly, by
                                                                       restricting it to trade unions and failing to take account of all
                                                                       other persons affected by the Conditions of Employment and
                                                                       Staff Rules and is therefore unable to see precisely what
                                                                       differentiates the applicants from ‘all other persons’, namely
                                                                       the fact that they are able to conclude collective agreements