CELEX: C1999/366/32
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-386/99: Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

C 366/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.12.1999
Must Article 119 of the EC Treaty [Articles 117 to 120 of the             Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC] be
interpreted to mean that pension funds must be considered to              The third paragraph of Article 249 EC requires each Member
be employers and are obliged to treat men and women equally               State to which a directive is addressed to transpose the
as regards payments of occupational old-age pensions, even                provisions thereof into national law within the time-limit
though disadvantaged employees have a claim, which is                     prescribed for that purpose, in such a way as to give full effect
protected in the event of insolvency and therefore precludes              thereto. The time-limit laid down in Article 3 of the directive
discrimination, against the body directly responsible for pro-            expired on 31 May 1998, but Germany has not adopted the
vision of a pension, that is to say their employer as a party to          necessary measures in that regard.
the employment contract.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 17.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                                    lic of Germany
Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                             (Case C-387/99)
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                                   (1999/C 366/33)
                           (Case C-386/99)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (1999/C 366/32)                                 ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal
                                                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              (1) declare that, by classifying as medicinal products vitamin
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                 and mineral nutrient preparations which have been law-
                                                                               fully produced and/or placed on the market as food
                                                                               supplements in other Member States, where the daily dose
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    of such vitamins and minerals is more than three times
                                                                               that recommended by the German Gesellschaft für Ernäh-
                                                                               rung, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                obligations under Article 28 EC;
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
     Commission Directive 96/65/EC (1) of 11 October 1996                 (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council,
     Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              Pleas in law and main arguments
     States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     of dangerous preparations and modifying Directive                    Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obstacle to trade resulting
     91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging of                from the practice followed by the German administrative
     which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings, the            authorities and courts cannot be justified on grounds of public
     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                 health or consumer protection, since that practice is not in
     obligations under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC in           accordance with the principle of proportionality. It is an
     conjunction with Article 3(1) of that directive;                     established scientific fact that the threshold at which increasing
                                                                          doses of vitamins become harmful is not reached at the same
                                                                          rate in the case of all vitamins. Consequently, to regard all
(2) alternatively, declare that the Federal Republic of Germany           vitamins in global/abstract terms, in such a way as necessarily
     has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission         to apply the strictest criterion, is to go beyond what is
     without delay of the measures taken to transpose the                 necessary and permissible in order to achieve the goal of health
     directive;                                                           protection under Community law; it is disproportionate.
(3) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.