Raffaello Visciano v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS).
Date: 2009-07-16
26. In that regard, it must be recalled, first, that Article 3(1) of Directive 80/987 requires Member States to take the measures necessary to ensure that guarantee institutions guarantee, subject to Article 4 of that directive, payment of employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships and relating to pay for the period prior to a given date (Case C-201/01 Walcher  [2003] ECR I-8827, paragraph 31).
27. Second, the social objective of Directive 80/97 is to guarantee employees a minimum level of Community protection in the event of the employer’s insolvency through payment of outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships and relating to pay for a specific period ( Barsotti and Others , paragraph 35, and case-law cited).
28. However, according to Article 2(2) of Directive 80/987, it is for national law to specify the term ‘pay’ and to define it (Case C-520/03 Olaso Valero  [2004] ECR I-12065, paragraph 31 and case-law cited).
38. Articles 4, 5 and 10 of Directive 80/987, which permit the Member States not only to set the detailed rules regarding the organisation, financing and operation of the guarantee institution, but also to limit, in certain circumstances, the protection which it is designed to provide to employees, provide for neither a temporal limitation of the rights that employees derive from that directive nor a restriction on Member States’ freedom to set a time-limit for lodging applications (Case C‑125/01 Pflücke  [2003] ECR I-9375, paragraph 31).
39. In those circumstances, the Member States are in principle free to lay down in their national law provisions establishing a limitation period for the introduction of an application by an employee seeking the payment, under the rules laid down by Directive 80/987, of their outstanding claims relating to pay, provided, however, that those provisions are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic applications (principle of equivalence) and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see Pflücke , paragraph 34, and case-law cited).
41. As regards the principle of equivalence, it must be observed at the outset that the application for payment of an employee’s outstanding remuneration from the Fund and an application by such a worker to his insolvent employer are not the same. That is apparent inter alia from Article 4 of Directive 80/987 which gives Member States the option of limiting the obligation to pay of guarantee institutions.
43. As regards the principle of effectiveness, the Court has stated that it is compatible with Community law to lay down reasonable time-limits for bringing proceedings in the interests of legal certainty which protects both the taxpayer and the authorities concerned (Case C-228/96 Aprile  [1998] ECR I-7141, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). Such time-limits do not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by Community law.
44. As regards payment of claims for salary which, by their very nature, are of great importance to the individual concerned, the shortness of the time-limit prescribed should not have the result that the individual concerned cannot in practice succeed in complying with that time-limit, so that he does not benefit from the protection that Directive 80/987 is specifically intended to guarantee him (see Pflücke , paragraph 37).
45. On that subject, the Court has held that a time-limit of one year for bringing an action seeking compensation for damage sustained as a result of the belated transposition of Directive 80/987 into national law appears reasonable (Case C‑261/95 Palmisani  [1997] ECR I-4025, paragraph 29).
46. However, it is also apparent from Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer  [2002] ECR I‑6325, paragraph 39, that in order to serve their purpose of ensuring legal certainty, limitation periods must be fixed in advance. A situation marked by significant legal uncertainty may involve a breach of the principle of effectiveness, because reparation of the loss or damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which a Member State can be held responsible could be rendered excessively difficult in practice if the individuals were unable to determine the applicable limitation period with a reasonable degree of certainty (Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 33, and the case-law cited).