Karen Mau v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.
Date: 2003-05-15
18.  The questions referred to the Court partly concern the interpretation of national law and the assessment of its conformity with Community law.  According to settled case-law (see, in particular, Case C-134/95   USSL No 47 di Biella   [1997] ECR I-195, paragraph 17, and Case C-228/98   Dounias   [2000] ECR I-577, paragraph 36) the Court does not have jurisdiction to reply to such questions, and it is therefore necessary, as a preliminary step, to define the subject-matter of this reference for a preliminary ruling.
22.  As for the date of such onset, the Court's case-law shows that it is the date on which the request is lodged for the opening of the procedure collectively to satisfy creditors' claims (Joined Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95   Bonifaci and Others and Berto and Others   [1997] ECR I-3969, paragraphs 42 and 44; Case C-373/95   Maso   [1997] ECR I-4051, paragraphs 52 and 54).
32.  In that regard, it is sufficient to note that Directive 80/987, as is pointed out in Article 9, does not affect the option of Member States to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions which are more favourable to employees.  It is for the Federal Republic of Germany to increase the guarantee period appropriately, if it sees fit.
Legal consequences of the fact that the rules for calculating the guarantee period laid down by national law do not correspond to those required by Community law
34.  In such a situation, it is for the national court to ensure, for matters within its jurisdiction, the full effectiveness of Community law when it determines the dispute before it.
35.  It is settled case-law that the Member States' obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by the directive and their duty under Article 10 EC to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation, is binding on all the authorities of Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts (Case 14/83   Von Colson and Kamann   [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26; Case C-131/97   Carbonari and Others   [1999] ECR I-1103, paragraph 48).
36.  Where a national court is called upon to interpret national law, whether the provisions in question were adopted before or after the directive concerned, it is required to do so, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (Case C-106/89   Marleasing   [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8; Case C-334/92   Wagner Miret   [1993] ECR I-6911, paragraph 20; Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97   Deutsche Post   [2000] ECR I-929, paragraph 62).
41.  Moreover, the case-law of the Court shows that words which apply to the actual determination of the minimum guarantee under Community law must be given a uniform interpretation if the harmonisation sought, even in part, at Community level is not to be rendered ineffective (Case C-125/97   Regeling   [1998] ECR I-4493, paragraph 19).  Since the concept of an employment relationship is a necessary factor in determining the guarantee period, it requires a uniform interpretation in Community law.
42.  Interpretation of the concept of an employment relationship must in particular take account of the social purpose of Directive 80/987, which is to ensure a minimum level of protection for all workers (Regeling  , paragraph 20).  The concept cannot therefore be interpreted in such a way as to allow the minimum guarantees laid down in Article 4(2) of that directive to be reduced to nothing.