Luxembourg, 26/10/2001 (Agence Europe) - Greek legislation relating to the emergency stocks of petroleum products is incompatible with Community legislation, says the Court of Justice. The press release recalls that the Greek market is structured on three levels: refineries, marketing companies and service stations. The marketing companies may purchase petroleum products from Greek refineries or import them and then supply service stations. Service stations may not buy directly from refineries or import petroleum products; they must therefore turn to marketing companies.
Community legislation demands that Member States maintain emergency stocks of petroleum products at a level equivalent to a minimum of 90 days of the average daily domestic consumption of the previous year. Emergency stocks must be on national territory and constituted by marketing companies.
Since 1996, marketing companies have had the right to transfer their storage obligations to refineries established in Greece, in proportion to the quantity of petroleum purchased from the latter over the previous year.
The Commission considers that the Greek system amounts to playing to the advantage of Greek refineries, marketing companies being encouraged to supply themselves from national refineries offering them storage facilities. The Commission saw in this injury to the free movement of goods and took the case to the Court of Justice. The Greek Government claimed that, even should one suppose that the system was an obstacle to the free movement of goods, this obstacle would be justified by the goal of the general interest, more precisely that of the security of supply in petroleum products.
The Court considers that "making the transfer of the storage obligation conditional upon the purchase of petroleum products from refineries established in Greece constitute discrimination against petroleum products from refineries in other Member States, in that it makes their marketing more difficult". Finally, the Court considers that "the security objectives cited by Greece could be achieved be less restrictive measures".
The Finalarte Sociedade de Construcao Civil case. The Court has ruled on the application of the German paid holidays scheme of workers in the construction industry in the case of employers established in Portugal and the United Kingdom. The press release states that "a Member State may, in certain circumstances, require a construction business established in another Member state which sends workers to work in the first Member state to comply with a scheme for paid leave if the scheme is to the advantage of those workers".
For the construction sector, in which workers frequently change employers, a fund was set up to compensate the current employer for the heavy financial burden posed by the payment of holiday pay even for holiday acquired with other employers and to guarantee the equitable distribution of the financial burden between the employers concerned.
From 1 January 1997 that leave scheme was extended to employment relationships between undertakings with registered offices outside Germany and workers they send to construction sites in Germany, the press release explains.
In the case at hand, eight employers established in Portugal and in the United Kingdom each sent workers to Germany to do construction work. The fund requires that those employers contribute to the scheme to finance the holiday entitlement of construction workers, and also that they disclose information to it. The employers object to this. The Arberitsgericht of Wisbaden, which was referred these disputes between the employers and the fund, asked the Court if the German legislation was compatible with Community law and more specifically with the free movement of services. The German court considers that the formalities imposed on providers of services established outside Germany have the effect of increasing their costs and administrative and economic burdens. There is therefore restriction of the freedom to provide services, the press release points out, adding: "the Court is considering whether that restriction is justified. The declared aim of the German rules is to protect German businesses in the construction industry from the increasing pressure of competition in the European internal market, and thus from foreign providers of services. Such a law is therefore intended, above all, to combat the allegedly unfair practices of European businesses engaged in low-pay competition". Yet, the Court has already held that such measures restricting the freedom to provide services cannot be justified by economic aims such as the protection of national businesses.
The Court considers that it rests with the German jurisdiction to verify whether, when taken objectively, the regulation in question effectively protects posted workers. Thus, application of the national regulations in the territory of the Member State from which they are posted must give such workers a real advantage, significantly contributing to their social protection. The application of this regulation must be proportionate to the general interest objective pursued.
(The directive concerning posted workers in the context of the provision of services was to have been transposed before 16 December 1999, and its provisions therefore have no consequence on the facts which relate to 1997, the press service specifies).
Ambulanz Glöckner affair. The Court takes a stance on the situation of almost monopoly of health organisations for the transport of sick persons by ambulance in the German Land of Rhineland Palatinate. The general interest mission entrusted to health organisations responsible for the law on transport for the ill may require limited competition in a restricted geographical area if this restriction is necessary for the exercise of the mission concerned to reach an overall economic balance, states the press release.