CELEX: C1999/136/18
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-76/99: Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

15.5.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 136/11
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by the Commission of                    (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 18 January 1999,
 the European Communities against the French Republic                  which was received at the Court Registry on 4 March 1999,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of Julia Schnorbus v Land
                                                                       Hessen on the following questions:
                         (Case C-76/99)
                                                                       1. Under Sections 24 (2) JAG and 14(a) JAO, where a decision
                        (1999/C 136/18)
                                                                           concerning the admission of applicants to practical legal
                                                                           training is required because the number of applicants
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               exceeds the number of training places, an applicant who
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 March                    has completed a duty of service which is only obligatory
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        on men (military or substitute service pursuant to Article
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,            12 a GG) is to be immediately admitted to the training and
assisted by Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address            does not have to satisfy any further requirements in that
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la             regard, whereas the admission of other applicants (female
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            and male) may be deferred by up to 12 months. Does such
                                                                           a rule fall within the scope of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9
                                                                           February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
the Court should:                                                          employment, vocational training and promotion, and
                                                                           working conditions (1)?
— declare that, by levying VAT on fixed allowances for the
    taking of medical samples for medical analysis, the French
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article        2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, then:
    13A(1)(b) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (the Sixth VAT
    Directive) (1);                                                        Does such a rule which, insofar as, exclusively in regard to
                                                                           performance of the duty of service, it results in the
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              preferential admission of male applicants to practical legal
                                                                           training, amount to direct discrimination on grounds of
                                                                           sex within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            76/207/EEC?
In the Commission’s view, the term ‘activities...closely related’      3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative:
to medical care includes the despatch of a sample by the
laboratory which has taken it to another, more specialised                 Does the rule cause indirect discrimination?
laboratory which is the only laboratory authorised under the
national rules to analyse the sample in question. It follows that
the exemption laid down by Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth              4. Does the fact that the said rule automatically results in the
Directive must apply to fixed allowances payable under those               preferential admission of men to training without a
rules by the specialised laboratory to the laboratory by which             decision on the matter being subject to an assessment of
the sample was taken. The distinction drawn in France, for the             the individual circumstances or of other relevant factors
purposes of the VAT system, between ordinary analyses and                  meriting consideration in the interests of the remaining
special analyses offends against the principles of neutrality and          applicants in itself preclude justification of the rule for the
uniformity which are applicable to intra-Community VAT.                    purposes of Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC because
                                                                           it is to that extent more than a measure to promote equal
                                                                           opportunity?
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                       5. If question 4 is to be answered in the negative:
                                                                           Is such a rule not justifiable under Article 2(4) of Directive
                                                                           76/207/EEC because only measures which serve to pro-
                                                                           mote equal opportunity in favour of women are permiss-
                                                                           ible thereunder?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       6. If question 5 is to be answered in the negative:
gericht Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of
18 January 1999 in the case of Julia Schnorbus v Land
                              Hessen                                       Is the mere fact that only men are subject to duties of
                                                                           service under Articles 12 a (1) and (2) GG itself to be
                                                                           regarded as an actual existing inequality within the mean-
                         (Case C-79/99)                                    ing of Article 2(4) of Directive 76/207/EEC which in
                                                                           itself prejudicially affects men’s opportunities in the areas
                        (1999/C 136/19)                                    referred to in Article 1 (1) of the directive, or are the
                                                                           disadvantages faced by women in employment and the
                                                                           risks to which they are in fact exposed on grounds of their
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     sex also to be taken into account before such a conclusion
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                    can be reached?