CELEX: C2002/305/18
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-354/02: Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

7.12.2002                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 305/11
zum Arbeitnehmer-Entsendegesetz’ (notes on the Law concern-              The applicant claims that the Court should:
ing the posting of employees abroad), in the still unchanged
version thereof, is provided to employers and forms the basis
of administrative controls by the competent authorities.                 1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                               and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                               Commission Directive 2000/42/EC of 22 June 2000 (1)
Responding in detail to arguments put forward by the German                    amending the Annexes to Council Directives 86/362/
Government, the Commission maintains in particular that:                       EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of
                                                                               maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
—     the power conferred on Member States, in accordance                      vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
      with the second paragraph of Article 3(1) of Directive                   fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      96/71/EC, to define the concept of ‘minimum pay’                         Commission of their adoption, or in failing to notify the
      does not also include competence to determine the                        Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      methodology to be followed in carrying out the compara-                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      tive examination;
                                                                         2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
—     although determination of the criterion of ‘accrual’ may
      be relevant for the purposes of defining the concept of
      ‘minimum pay’, the problem of wage elements the accrual
      of which is deferred (e.g. the 13th month’s salary,
      Christmas bonuses) cannot — as provided for in the
      ‘Merkblatt’ — be resolved by simply leaving such matters           Pleas in law and principle arguments
      out of account;
—     control problems arising in connection with such wage              The obligation of the Member States to implement the
      elements are to be resolved bilaterally between the                directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
      Member States concerned, and may not lead to a                     with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
      restriction of freedom to provide services;                        case that time-limit expired on 28.02.2001, by which time the
                                                                         Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.
—     a Member State which has not included supplementary
      holiday pay as part of the minimum pay defined by
      it may not compensate for that ‘lacuna’ by treating
      contributions actually paid to an institution in the               (1 ) OJ 2000 L 158, p. 51.
      Member State where the employer is established which is
      comparable to a German holiday fund as an allowance
      which must be left out of account.
( 1) OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                         Austria
Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                              Austria                                                              (Case C-354/02)
                          (Case C-353/02)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 305/18)
                          (2002/C 305/17)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                    An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of the European                      on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,          Communities, presented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner        the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                      Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.12.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and
                                                                                 vegetables and certain products of plant origin, including
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                    fruit and vegetables respectively, or in failing to notify the
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                       Commission of their adoption, the Republic of Austria
      Commission Directive 2000/57/EC of 22 September                            has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 76/
      895/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of maximum                     2.     Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables
      and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
      vegetables respectively, the Republic of Austria has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                          Pleas in law and principle arguments
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                          The obligation of the Member States to implement the
                                                                          directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
Pleas in law and principle arguments
                                                                          case that time-limit expired on 31.03.2001, by which time the
                                                                          Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary measures.
The obligation of the Member States do implement the
directives (Article 249(3) EC) includes an obligation to comply
                                                                          (1 ) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 78.
with the time-limits laid down in the directives. In the present
case that time-limit expired on 31 March 2001, by which time
the Republic of Austria had not adopted the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 244, p. 76.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the tribunal du
                                                                          travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 24 Sep-
                                                                          tember 2002 in the case of Yamina Haddad against Belgian
                                                                                                            State
Action brought on 3 October 2002 by the Commission                                                   (Case C-358/02)
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                               Austria
                                                                                                     (2002/C 305/20)
                           (Case C-355/02)
                           (2002/C 305/19)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the tribunal du travail
                                                                          de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 24 September 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 7 October 2002, for a
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     preliminary ruling in the case of Yamina Haddad against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   Belgian State on the following question:
on 3 October 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its legal service,           Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement signed on
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             27 April 1976 between the Member States of the European
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the legal service, Wagner         Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, as
Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.                                       approved on behalf of the Community by Regulation No 2211/
                                                                          78 of 26 September 1978 (1), be interpreted, inter alia in the
                                                                          light of Article 14 of the European Convention for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
                                                                          signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and Article 1 of Protocol
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             No 1 thereto of 20 March 1952, as precluding a Member State
      and administrative provisions necessary to implement                from refusing to grant a benefit such as a disability allowance,
      Commission Directive 2000/58/EC of 22 September                     as provided under its laws in favour of its nationals and
      2000 ( 1) amending the Annexes to Council Directive 86/             citizens of the European Union, to a Moroccan national who
      362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the fixing of                 is a student and the wife of an unemployed Moroccan national,