CELEX: C1998/234/34
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-197/98)

25.7.98                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 234/17
    they are of special importance for the successful                          conditions such as those imposed in Great Britain for
    deployment of the contractual employee, otherwise to                       Reduced Earnings Allowance from 1988Ð89 onwards
    the extent of one half if the service started not later                    are necessary to ensure coherence between schemes or
    than 30 April 1995, and if it started later to the extent                  otherwise fall within the permitted exclusion in
    of one half but only in so far as they do not exceed a                     Article 7?
    total of three years?
                                                                         3.    If those unequal age conditions are not within the
    If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative,
                                                                               permittd exclusion in Article 7, then does the doctrine
                                                                               of direct effect require the national court (in the
3. Are periods completed in institutions in Member                             absence of national legislation to comply with the
    States comparable to the said institutions to be taken                     Directive) to rectify the inequality by awarding an
    into account without temporal limitation?                                  additional payment to each individual concerned in
                                                                               any week when the payment prescribed under the
                                                                               occupational accident and disease scheme for him or
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                             her is lower than for a person of the other sex but in
                                                                               otherwise similar circumstances (the comparator'),
                                                                               without regard to:
                                                                               (a) any converse advantage in other weeks when, for
                                                                                   the same individual, a higher payment is
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security                          prescribed than for the comparator; and/or
Commissioner, by order of 8 May 1998, in the cases of
Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick Vincent Lunn,
Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against the Adjudication                       (b) the existence or exercise of sex-differentiated
                              Officer                                              options under the pension scheme to choose the
                                                                                   pension starting age, the effect of which in
                        (Case C-196/98)
                                                                                   conjunction with the unequal conditions under the
                          (98/C 234/33)                                            occupational accident and disease scheme may be
                                                                                   to cause altered (and unequal) weekly payments
                                                                                   under that scheme: in some weeks to the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             advantage of the individual, in others to the
European Communities by an order of the Social Security                            comparator?
Commissioner of 8 May 1998, which was recevied at the
Court Registry on 22 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the cases of Regina Virginia Hepple, Anna Stec, Patrick                     Or should some account be taken of such matters,
Vincent Lunn, Oliver Kimber and Sybil Spencer against                          and if so what are the principles to be applied in
the Adjudication Officer, on the following questions:                          relation to them in giving direct effect to Article 4?
1.   Does Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC (1)                    (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                             progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
     permit a Member State to impose unequal age
                                                                             for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6 of
     conditions linked to the different pension ages for                     10.1.1979, p. 24).
     men and women under its statutory old-age pension
     scheme, on entitlement to a benefit having the
     characteristics of Reduced Earnings Allowance under
     a statutory occupational accident and disease scheme,
     so as to produce different weekly cash payments
     under that scheme for men and women in otherwise
     similar circumstances, in particular where the
     inequality:                                                         Action brought on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     (a) is not necessary for any financial reason connected                                    (Case C-197/98)
         with either scheme; and
                                                                                                 (98/C 234/34)
     (b) never having been imposed before, is imposed for
         the first time many years after the inception of the
         two schemes and also after 23 December 1984,                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
         the latest date for the Directive to be given full              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
         effect under Article 8?                                         on 20 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. Patakia and B. Mongin,
                                                                         both of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
2.   If the answer to Question I is Yes, what are the                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
     considerations that determine whether unequal age                   its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
The Commission claims that the Court should:                        ruling in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J.
                                                                    Barrass against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and
                                                                    Industry and 2) Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation), on the
Ð declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to             following question:
     comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of
     23 March 1995 in Case C-365/93 (1) and, in particular,         Where
     by not having yet adopted, and communicated to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative           (i)   an employee works in one Member State for an
     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                    employer incorporated in another Member State; and
     Directive 89/48/EEC (2) of 21 December 1988 on a
     general system for the recognition of higher-education         (ii) the employer has a branch in the Member State in
     diplomas awarded on completion of professional                       which the employee works, and that branch is
     education and training of at least three years'                      registered under the national provisions implementing
     duration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its             Council Directive 89/666/EEC (1) (the Eleventh
     obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty;                      Company Law Directive), although it is not
                                                                          incorporated and does not have legal personality
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           separate from that of the employer, in that Member
                                                                          State; and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (iii) both the employer and the employee are required to
                                                                          make social security contributions in the Member
                                                                          State in which the employee works;
Under Article 171 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State
fails to take, within the time-limit laid down by the               under Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (2) of
Commission, the necessary measures to comply with a                 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
judgment in which the Court has found that the Member               Member States relating to the protection of employees in
State in question failed to fulfil its obligations under the        the event of the insolvency of their employer, which
Treaty, the Commission may bring the case before the                guarantee institution is responsible for the payments
Court of Justice. In so doing the Commission is to specify          thereby due; is it
the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be
paid by the Member State concerned which it considers               (a) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
appropriate in the circumstances. The failure fully to                    which insolvency proceedings have been commenced,
transpose Directive 89/48/EEC into Greek law constitutes                  or
a breach of the fundamental principles of the free
movement of persons and the freedom to provide services,
                                                                    (b) the guarantee institution in the Member State in
and three years have already passed since the Court gave
                                                                          which the employee works and in which the
judgment in Case C-365/93. In view of the seriousness and
                                                                          employer has a permanent commercial presence?'
duration of the breach and the need to ensure that the
sanction has a deterrent effect, the Commission invites the
                                                                    (1) Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989
Court to impose a penalty payment of ECU 41 000 per                     concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches
day from the day on which the Hellenic Republic is                      opened in a Member State by certain types of company
notified of the judgment of the Court in this case until the            governed by the law of another State (OJ L 395 of
day on which the breach ceases.                                         30.12.1989, p. 36).
                                                                    (2) OJ L 283 of 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) Case C-365/93 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-499.
(2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                    Appeal brought on 25 May 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
                                                                    against the order made on 16 March 1998 by the Third
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial                Communities in Case T-235/95, between Anthony
Tribunal, Bristol, by order of that court of 6 May 1998,                   Goldstein and the Commission of the European
in the case of 1) Mr G. Everson and 2) Mr T. J. Barrass                                       Communities
against 1) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and 2)                                (Case C-199/98 P)
                Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation)
                                                                                             (98/C 234/36)
                       (Case C-198/98)
                        (98/C 234/35)                               An appeal against the order made on 16 March 1998 by
                                                                    the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                    European Communities in Case T-235/95, between
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Anthony Goldstein and the Commission of the European
European Communities by an order of the Industrial                  Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
Tribunal, Bristol, of 6 May 1998, which was received at             the European Communities on 25 May 1998 by Anthony
the Court Registry on 25 May 1998, for a preliminary                Goldstein, a medical practitioner, represented by Mr