You are on page 1of 2

C 6/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.1.

2009

Questions referred Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the


European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-468/08)

1. Is Clause 2(6) of Annex 1 to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) (2009/C 6/22)


of 3 June 1996 to be interpreted as meaning that observance
of rights in the process of being acquired extends to a Language of the case: French
pension for life on the ground of a person's total and perma-
nent incapacity to perform her usual work, arising during
the period of a year's parental leave taken in the form of a
reduction in the working day and pay, as a result of an occu- Parties
pational disease contracted in carrying out the work she was
employed to perform for the undertaking that gave the Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
parental leave and revealing itself during that leave period, sented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, acting as Agents)
having regard to the fact that Social Security covers that
benefit in subrogation to the obligations of the undertaking, Defendant: French Republic
by reason of the relationship of compulsory insurance
against the risks of accidents at work and occupational
diseases? Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed


period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
2. If the reply to the first question is affirmative, is that provi- necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the Euro-
sion to be interpreted as meaning that the guarantee of pean Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005
protection which it provides is infringed by a provision of on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) or, in
domestic law that, with the object of fixing the amount of any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
pension for total permanent invalidity on account of occupa- French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
tional disease, takes into consideration the pay received by Directive;
the worker concerned and the contributions actually made
on the basis of that pay in the 12 months before the opera- — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
tive event, during the greater part of which the worker made
use of that leave with a reduction in her working day, pay
and contributions, but does not provide any correcting factor Pleas in law and main arguments
making it possible to ensure that the object of that provision
of Community law is achieved? The period for the transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC
expired on 20 October 2007. At the date of bringing this
action, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures neces-
sary to transpose the Directive or, in any event, it had not
3. At all events, and whatever the tenor of the answer to the informed the Commission of them.
foregoing questions, are Clauses 2(8) and 4(2) of Annex I to
that directive to be interpreted as meaning that the obliga-
tions and measures that they prescribe are incompatible with (1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.
the application of a rule of calculation such as that
described?

4. Irrespective of the replies to the foregoing questions, is


Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
security, in conjunction with Article 5 thereof, to be inter-
preted as meaning that it is contrary to the principle of equal (Case C-469/08)
treatment to apply a calculation formula such as that referred
to, given that, according to the statistics, female workers
(2009/C 6/23)
form the overwhelming majority of workers availing them-
selves of the form of parental leave described?
Language of the case: French

(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agree-


ment on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC,
(OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4). Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-


sented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium


10.1.2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/15

Form of order sought 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: do Regu-


lation No 1782/2003 and Regulation No 795/2004, or the
— declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed general principles of Community law, in particular the prin-
period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions ciple of the prohibition of unjustified enrichment, require a
necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the Euro- lessor, in the absence of national rules in this respect, to pay
pean Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 to the lessee compensation for the payment entitlements
on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) or, in transferred to the lessor, and if so, should the lessor compen-
any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the sate the lessee for the full value of those entitlements or for
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under only a proportion of that value, and, if the latter, for what
that Directive; proportion?

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. 3. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: do Regulation
No 1782/2003 and Regulation No 795/2004, or the general
principles of Community law, in particular the principle of
Pleas in law and main arguments the prohibition of unjustified enrichment, require a lessee, in
the absence of national rules in this respect, to pay to the
The period for the transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC lessor compensation for the payment entitlements retained
expired on 20 October 2007. At the date of bringing this by the lessee, and if so, should the lessee compensate the
action, the Defendant had not yet taken all the measures neces- lessor for the full value of those entitlements or for only a
sary to transpose the Directive or, in any event, it had not proportion of that value, and, if the latter, for what propor-
informed the Commission of them. tion?

(1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22. (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003
establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93,
(EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001,
(EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC)
No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001
(OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).
2
( ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying
down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
Arnhem (Netherlands), lodged on 3 November 2008 — establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
K. van Dijk v Gemeente Kampen common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1).

(Case C-470/08)

(2009/C 6/24)

Language of the case: Dutch


Action brought on 12 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Referring court
(Case C-490/08)
Gerechtshof te Arnhem

(2009/C 6/25)
Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K. van Dijk Language of the case: French

Respondent: Gemeente Kampen

Questions referred
Parties
1
1. Do Regulation No 1782/2003 ( ) and Regulation
No 795/2004 (2), or the general principles of Community
law, in particular the principle of the prohibition of unjusti- Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
fied enrichment, require a lessee, in the absence of national sented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)
rules in this respect, to deliver the leased land, including the
payment entitlements accumulated thereon or relating
thereto, to the lessor on the expiry of the lease? Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium