CELEX: C2002/261/03
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-282/02: Action brought on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

C 261/2                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.10.2002
3.     For each case assigned to a large Chamber, namely the            Sixth Chamber
Fifth and Sixth Chambers, to each of which seven judges are
attached, the five judges who are to sit shall be determined on         (President: Judge Puissochet)
the basis of a list drawn up for the judicial year comprising all       Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken, Judge da Cunha Rodrigues,
the judges of the Chamber, except the President, in the                 Judge Schintgen, Judge Skouris and Judge Colneric.
following order:
(a)   the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges are          Appointment of the First Advocate General
      attached, in order of seniority;
                                                                        At its meeting held on 1 October 2002, in accordance with
(b)   the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.         Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice
                                                                        appointed Advocate General J. Mischo as First Advocate
                                                                        General for a period of one year starting on 7 October 2002.
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:
—     the President,
—     the Judge-Rapporteur,                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                        richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in
—     three judges appointed in order from the list; the starting-       the case of Engin Ayaz against Land Baden-Württemberg
      point on that list shall be moved down one name at each
      general meeting.                                                                          (Case C-275/02)
                                                                                                (2002/C 261/02)
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in order
from the list. However, should the President of the large
Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be replaced if
possible by the President of the small Chamber.                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 11 July 2002,
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear and            received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2002, for a
determine two or more cases together (whether or not they               preliminary ruling in the case of Engin Ayaz against Land
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be             Baden-Württemberg on the following question:
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.                                                                Is a stepson aged under 21 years of a Turkish worker who is
                                                                        duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member
                                                                        State a member of the family within the meaning of the first
4.     For the period ending on 6 October 2003, the lists               paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
referred to above are as follows:                                       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
                                                                        Association?
Third Chamber
(President: Judge Puissochet)
Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken and Judge de Cunha Rodrigues.
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of
Fourth Chamber                                                                   the European Communities against Ireland
(President: Judge Timmermans)                                                                   (Case C-282/02)
Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola and Judge von Bahr.                                              (2002/C 261/03)
Fifth Chamber
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(President: Judge Wathelet)                                             Justice of the European Communities on 31 July 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola, Judge von Bahr, Judge                   Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Timmermans, Judge Jann and Judge Rosas.                                 Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 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?