CELEX: C2001/079/20
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-455/00: Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 79/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen (5) Verband
                                                                           der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV — Arbeiter-
                        of 12 October 2000                                 Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkasse and (8) Bundes-
                                                                           knappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal Republic of Germany,
in Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic v Commission of                      and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen on the
                 the European Communities (1)                              following questions:
 (Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid)                  1.   Must statutory sickness funds and the associations thereof
                                                                                which are subject to State supervision be regarded as
                           (2001/C 79/18)                                       undertakings or associations of undertakings within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 81 et seq. EC for the purpose of the
                                                                                joint determination of the level of uniform fixed amounts
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                              for medicinal products to which the funds’ liability is
                                                                                limited in relation to the insured persons?
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     2.   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                   in the European Court Reports)                               does determination of a fixed amount as referred to in
                                                                                the first question constitute an agreement which restricts
In Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and                  competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC?
C. Tsiavou) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                           3.   Do Articles 81 and 86 EC preclude legislation giving
suspension of operation, primarily, of Commission Decision
                                                                                social security funds and associations thereof the power
E(2000) 686 final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid
                                                                                to determine fixed amounts of the kind referred to in the
schemes implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
                                                                                first question for medicinal products?
agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994 including
aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO,
alternatively of Article 2 of that decision — the President of
the Court has made an order on 12 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                                    (Case C-455/00)
                                                                                                     (2001/C 79/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial-                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
gericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
28 September 2000 in the case of Merz + Co. GmbH &                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Co. v (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                          represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bun-                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
desverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
(5)Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV                     Centre, Kirchberg.
— Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkas-
se and (8) Bundesknappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal
Republic of Germany, and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        und Krankenkassen
                                                                           —    Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                          (Case C-428/00)                                       obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) of Council Directive
                                                                                90/270/EEC (1) of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety
                           (2001/C 79/19)                                       and health requirements for work with display screen
                                                                                equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), inasmuch as
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        it:
Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higer Social Court of North Rhine-
Westphalia) of 28 September 2000, which was received at the                     (a)   does not ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
Court Registry on 20 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                          workers who use display screen equipment within
in the case of (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                            the meaning of Article 2(c) of the abovementioned
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bundesver-                            directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.3.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/11
       (b) does not ensure that an additional ophthalmological              —    According to Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC,
             test is carried out whenever necessary as a result of               workers are entitled to receive ‘special corrective
             the regular eye and eyesight tests;                                 appliances appropriate for the work concerned’, where
                                                                                 this proves necessary following testing and the wearing
                                                                                 of normal corrective appliances is not possible. Such a
                                                                                 provision is the logical and necessary corollary to rules
       (c)   does not define the conditions for providing the
                                                                                 requiring the carrying out of eye and eyesight tests, and
             workers concerned with corrective appliances                        examination by an oculist where necessary, with a view
             appropriate for the work concerned.
                                                                                 to offering complete protection of the health and safety
                                                                                 of workers at risk.
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            —    However, in Article 55 of Decree-Law 626/94 no pro-
                                                                                 vision is made which expressly guarantees such a right.
                                                                                 Article 55(5) merely states: ‘expenditure in respect of
                                                                                 providing special corrective appliances appropriate for
                                                                                 the work concerned is to be borne by the employer’,
                                                                                 which is clear, but not sufficient to identify the precise
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                 criterion establishing the right of workers to benefit from
                                                                                 such provisions.
The Commission finds that the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) insofar as:                (1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
                                                                            (2) Council Directive of 12 June 1989, OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.
—      Italian legislation is to be regarded as incompatible with
       Directive 90/270/EEC as regards regular eye and eyesight
       tests for workers who have commenced work with display
       screen equipment. Article 9(1) of the abovementioned
       directive provides that all workers working on display
       screen equipment are entitled to regular eye and eyesight
       tests after commencing display screen work in order to
       prevent visual difficulties which may be due to display
       screen work, as well as other possible illness, connected            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
       with overexposure to radiation emitted by display equip-             Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich by order of
       ment. The workers concerned, therefore, are to be                    15 December 2000 in the case of Primetzhofer Stahl- und
       regarded as workers at risk for the purposes of Directive                    Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich
       89/391. However, according to the wording of Article
       55(2) of Decree Law No 626/94, regular tests to take
       place at least every two years, are made available only to                                     (Case C-464/00)
       two specific classes of worker: those who were initially
       classified as fit, with corrective lenses, for work on display
       equipment and those over 45 years of age. Workers                                               (2001/C 79/21)
       under 45 years of age who were initially passed fit to
       work on video equipment without corrective lenses are
       thus wholly excluded from the protection afforded by                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Article 9(1) of the directive.                                       European Communities by order of 15 December 2000 by the
                                                                            Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich,
                                                                            which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
                                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Primetzhofer
—      However, the Commission would draw attention to the                  Stahl- und Fahrzeugbau GmbH v Land Oberösterreich on the
       fact that workers excluded by virtue of the Italian                  following questions:
       legislation from the regular eye and eyesight tests pro-
       vided for by Article 9(1) of Directive 90/270/EEC are
       in practice excluded also from the ophthalmological                  (a)  Do the rules of a Member State under which the court
       examination provided for by Article 9(2), since usually it                (the independent body) in the review procedure must also
       is the former test which shows signs of eyesight problems.                act of its own motion and determine the course of the
       In any event, even if Article 55(4) of Decree-Law 626/94                  preliminary investigation constitute an infringement of
       mentions the possibility of such an examination, the                      the first half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of
       legislation does not offer any assurance that it will be                  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
       carried out in every case where the normal regular eye                    the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrat-
       and eyesight test shows that further analysis is necessary,               ive provisions relating to the application of review
       thus significantly reducing the level of protection pro-                  procedures to the award of public supply and public
       vided for by the directive itself.                                        works contracts? (1)