Grounds
|
|
1 By orders of 9 July and 30 December 1989, which were received at the Court on 8 January and 15 January 1990 respectively, the Pretura di Vicenza (in Case C-6/90) and the Pretura di Bassano del Grappa (in Case C-9/90) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Official Journal 1980 L 283, p. 23).
|
|
|
2 Those questions were raised in the course of proceedings brought by Andrea Francovich and by Danila Bonifaci and Others (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") against the Italian Republic.
|
1 Ved kendelser af 9. juli og 30. december 1989, indgaaet til Domstolen henholdsvis den 8. og 15. januar 1990, har Pretura di Vicenza (sag C-6/90) og Pretura di Bassano del Grappa (sag C-9/90) i medfoer af EOEF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt en raekke praejudicielle spoergsmaal vedroerende fortolkningen af Traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, samt Raadets direktiv 80/987/EOEF af 20. oktober 1980 om indbyrdes tilnaermelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om beskyttelse af arbejdstagerne i tilfaelde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens (EFT L 283, s. 23).
|
|
3 Directive 80/987 is intended to guarantee employees a minimum level of protection under Community law in the event of the insolvency of their employer, without prejudice to more favourable provisions existing in the Member States. In particular it provides for specific guarantees of payment of unpaid wage claims.
|
2 Spoergsmaalene er rejst under retssager, som Andrea Francovich og Danila Bonifaci m.fl. (herefter benaevnt "sagsoegerne") har anlagt mod Den Italienske Republik.
|
|
4 Under Article 11 the Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive within a period which expired on 23 October 1983. The Italian Republic failed to fulfil that obligation, and its default was recorded by the Court in its judgment in Case 22/87 Commission v Italy ([1989] ECR 143).
|
3 Direktiv 80/987 har til formaal at sikre arbejdstagerne en vis minimumsbeskyttelse i Faellesskabet i tilfaelde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens, idet direktivet dog ikke afskaerer medlemsstaterne fra at anvende gunstigere bestemmelser. Med henblik herpaa skal der ifoelge direktivet navnlig tilvejebringes en raekke saerlige garantier for at sikre betaling af loentilgodehavender.
|
|
5 Mr Francovich, a party to the main proceedings in Case C-6/90, had worked for CDN Elettronica SnC in Vicenza but had received only sporadic payments on account of his wages. He therefore brought proceedings before the Pretura di Vicenza, which ordered the defendant to pay approximately LIT 6 million. In attempting to enforce that judgment the bailiff attached to the Tribunale di Vicenza was obliged to submit a negative return. Mr Francovich then claimed to be entitled to obtain from the Italian State the guarantees provided for in Directive 80/987 or, in the alternative, compensation.
|
4 Ifoelge direktivets artikel 11 skulle medlemsstaterne senest den 23. oktober 1983 have ivaerksat de noedvendige administrativt eller ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser til gennemfoerelse af direktivet. Da Den Italienske Republik ikke havde opfyldt denne forpligtelse, fastslog Domstolen ved dom af 2. februar 1989 (sag 22/87, Kommissionen mod Italien, Sml. s. 143), at den havde gjort sig skyldig i traktatbrud.
|
|
6 In Case C-9/90 Danila Bonifaci and 33 other employees brought proceedings before the Pretura di Bassano del Grappa, stating that they had been employed by Gaia Confezioni Srl, which was declared insolvent on 5 April 1985. When the employment relationships were discontinued, the plaintiffs were owed more than LIT 253 million, which was proved as a debt in the company' s insolvency. More than five years after the insolvency they had been paid nothing, and the receiver had told them that even a partial distribution in their favour was entirely improbable. Consequently, the plaintiffs brought proceedings against the Italian Republic in which they claimed that, in view of its obligation to implement Directive 80/987 with effect from 23 October 1983, it should be ordered to pay them their arrears of wages, at least for the last three months, or in the alternative to pay compensation.
|
5 Andrea Francovich, som er sagsoeger i hovedsagen vedroerende sag C-6/90, havde arbejdet for virksomheden "CDN Elettronica SnC" i Vicenza, men kun faaet udbetalt nogle lejlighedsvise acontobeloeb af sin loen. Han anlagde derfor sag ved Pretura di Vicenza, som doemte virksomheden til betaling af et beloeb paa ca 6 mio. LIT. Under tvangsfuldbyrdelsen maatte fogedafdelingen ved Tribunale di Vicenza imidlertid foere til fogedbogen, at udlaegsforretningen ikke kunne gennemfoeres. Francovich anlagde derpaa sag mod den italienske stat med paastand om, at den ydede ham de garantier, som er foreskrevet i direktiv 80/987, subsidiaert betalte ham erstatning.
|
|
7 It was in those circumstances that the national courts referred the following questions, which are identical in both cases, to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
|
6 Hovedsagen vedroerende sag C-9/90 blev anlagt af Danila Bonifaci og treogtredive andre arbejdstagere ved Pretura di Bassano del Grappa. De forklarede, at de havde vaeret ansat i virksomheden "Gaia Confezioni Srl", som blev erklaeret konkurs den 5. april 1985. Ved ansaettelsforholdets ophoer havde sagsoegerne et tilgodehavende paa mere end 253 mio. LIT, der var blevet anerkendt som passiver paahvilende konkursboet. Mere end fem aar efter konkursen havde sagsoegerne imidlertid endnu ikke faaet udbetalt noget beloeb og havde fra boets kurator modtaget meddelelse om, at det maatte anses for helt usandsynligt, at de opnaaede blot delvis daekning for deres fordringer. Sagsoegerne anlagde derfor sag mod Den Italienske Republik med paastand om, at denne, da den var forpligtet til at anvende direktiv 80/987 fra den 23. oktober 1983, tilpligtedes at betale sagsoegerne loentilgodehavender og mindst de sidste tre maaneders loen, subsidiaert betalte dem erstatning.
|
|
"(1) Under the system of Community law in force, is a private individual who has been adversely affected by the failure of a Member State to implement Directive 80/897 - a failure confirmed by a judgment of the Court of Justice - entitled to require the State itself to give effect to those provisions of that directive which are sufficiently precise and unconditional, by directly invoking the Community legislation against the Member State in default so as to obtain the guarantees which that State itself should have provided and in any event to claim reparation of the loss and damage sustained in relation to provisions to which that right does not apply?
|
7 Paa denne baggrund har de nationale retter forelagt Domstolen foelgende praejudicielle spoergsmaal, som er identiske i de to sager:
|
|
(2) Are the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 80/987 to be interpreted as meaning that where the State has not availed itself of the option of laying down limits under Article 4, the State itself is obliged to pay the claims of employees in accordance with Article 3?
|
"1) Kan private, som har lidt tab ved statens undladelse af at gennemfoere direktiv 80/987, naar denne undladelse ved en dom afsagt af Domstolen er fastslaaet at udgoere et traktatbrud, efter faellesskabsretten rejse krav om, at staten opfylder forpligtelserne efter direktivets forskrifter, saafremt disse er tilstraekkelig praecise og ubetingede, ved at paaberaabe sig dem direkte over for den medlemsstat, som har begaaet traktatbruddet, for at opnaa de garantier, som staten var forpligtet til at tilvejebringe? Kan private under alle omstaendigheder kraeve det tab erstattet, som de har lidt med hensyn til direktivforskrifter, som ikke er tilstraekkelig praecise og ubetingede?
|
|
(3) If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, the Court is asked to state what the minimum guarantee is that the State must provide pursuant to Directive 80/987 to an entitled employee so as to ensure that the share of pay payable to that employee may be regarded as giving effect to the directive."
|
2) Skal artikel 3, jf. artikel 4, i Raadets direktiv 80/987 fortolkes saaledes, at en stat, som ikke har udnyttet adgangen efter artikel 4 til at begraense sin betalingspligt, selv er forpligtet til at indfri arbejdstagernes tilgodehavender i det omfang, det er foreskrevet i artikel 3?
|
|
8 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the main proceedings, the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.
|
3) Er staten i benaegtende fald forpligtet til at yde den berettigede arbejdstager en vis minimumsgaranti efter direktiv 80/987, for at direktivets betingelser vedroerende arbejdstagerens loentilgodehavende kan anses for opfyldt?"
|
|
9 The first question submitted by the national courts raises two issues, which should be considered separately. It concerns, first, the direct effect of the provisions of the directive which determine the rights of employees and, secondly, the existence and scope of State liability for damage resulting from breach of its obligations under Community law.
|
8 Hvad naermere angaar de faktiske omstaendigheder i hovedsagerne, retsforhandlingernes forloeb samt de skriftlige indlaeg, der er indgivet for Domstolen, henvises i oevrigt til retsmoederapporten. Disse omstaendigheder omtales derfor kun i det foelgende i det omfang, det er noedvendigt for forstaaelsen af Domstolens argumentation.
|
|
The direct effect of the provisions of the directive which determine the rights of employees
|
9 Det foerste spoergsmaal, den nationale ret har forelagt, rejser to problemer, som skal undersoeges hver for sig. Det foerste problem er, om direktivets bestemmelser vedroerende fastlaeggelsen af arbejdstagernes rettigheder har direkte virkning, mens det andet er, om en stat ifalder erstatningsansvar for tab, som er forvoldt paa grund af tilsidesaettelsen af forpligtelser, der paahviler staten efter faellesskabsretten, og i bekraeftende fald i hvilket omfang.
|
|
10 The first part of the first question submitted by the national courts seeks to determine whether the provisions of the directive which determine the rights of employees must be interpreted as meaning that the persons concerned can enforce those rights against the State in the national courts in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period.
|
Spoergsmaalet om direktivets bestemmelser vedroerende fastlaeggelsen af arbejdstagernes rettigheder har direkte virkning
|
|
11 As the Court has consistently held, a Member State which has not adopted the implementing measures required by a directive within the prescribed period may not, against individuals, plead its own failure to perform the obligations which the directive entails. Thus wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or in so far as the provisions of the directive define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State (judgment in Case 8/81 Becker v Finanzamt Muenster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53).
|
10 Med den foerste del af den nationale rets foerste spoergsmaal oenskes det fastslaaet, om direktivets bestemmelser vedroerende fastlaeggelsen af arbejdstagernes rettigheder skal fortolkes saaledes, at de paagaeldende arbejdstagere kan paaberaabe sig disse rettigheder over for staten ved de nationale domstole, selv om direktivet ikke er rettidigt gennemfoert i national ret.
|
|
12 It is therefore necessary to see whether the provisions of Directive 80/987 which determine the rights of employees are unconditional and sufficiently precise. There are three points to be considered: the identity of the persons entitled to the guarantee provided, the content of that guarantee and the identity of the person liable to provide the guarantee. In that regard, the question arises in particular whether a State can be held liable to provide the guarantee on the ground that it did not take the necessary implementing measures within the prescribed period.
|
11 Efter Domstolens faste praksis kan en medlemsstat, som ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet de i direktivet kraevede gennemfoerelsesforanstaltninger, ikke over for private goere gaeldende, at den ikke har opfyldt de forpligtelser, som direktivet paalaegger den. Naar direktivbestemmelser ud fra et indholdsmaessigt synspunkt fremstaar som ubetingede og tilstraekkeligt praecise, kan der i mangel af rettidige gennemfoerelsesforanstaltninger stoettes ret herpaa over for enhver national regel, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med direktivet, ligesom private over for staten kan paaberaabe sig bestemmelser, der efter deres indhold tillaegger private rettigheder i forhold til staten. (Jf. dom af 19.1.1982, sag 8/81, Becker, Sml. s. 53, praemis 24 og 25).
|
|
13 With regard first of all to the identity of the persons entitled to the guarantee, it is to be noted that, according to Article 1(1), the directive applies to employees' claims arising from contracts of employment or employment relationships and existing against employers who are in a state of insolvency within the meaning of Article 2(1), the latter provision defining the circumstances in which an employer must be deemed to be in a state of insolvency. Article 2(2) refers to national law for the definition of the concepts of "employee" and "employer". Finally, Article 1(2) provides that the Member States may, by way of exception and under certain conditions, exclude claims by certain categories of employees listed in the annex to the directive.
|
12 Det maa derfor undersoeges, om de bestemmelser i direktiv 80/987, som fastlaegger arbejdstagernes rettigheder, er ubetingede og tilstraekkelig praecise. I den forbindelse er der tre forskellige spoergsmaal, som skal undersoeges, nemlig hvem der er omfattet af garantien ifoelge bestemmelserne, hvilket indhold denne garanti har, og endelig hvem garantien paahviler. Herved opstaar navnlig det spoergsmaal, om staten kan anses for garantiforpligtet, fordi den ikke har truffet de noedvendige gennemfoerelsesforanstaltninger inden for den foreskrevne frist.
|
|
14 Those provisions are sufficiently precise and unconditional to enable the national court to determine whether or not a person should be regarded as a person intended to benefit under the directive. A national court need only verify whether the person concerned is an employed person under national law and whether he is excluded from the scope of the directive in accordance with Article 1(2) and Annex 1 (as to the necessary conditions for such exclusion, see the judgments in Case 22/87 Commission v Italy, cited above, paragraphs 18 to 23, and Case C-53/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-3917, paragraphs 11 to 26), and then ascertain whether one of the situations of insolvency provided for in Article 2 of the directive exists.
|
13 Hvad foerst angaar spoergsmaalet om, hvem der er berettiget til garantien, bemaerkes, at direktivet ifoelge artikel 1, stk. 1, finder anvendelse paa krav, som arbejdstagere i medfoer af en arbejdsaftale eller et ansaettelsesforhold har erhvervet i forhold til arbejdsgivere, der er insolvente i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1. Denne sidste bestemmelse praeciserer naermere, hvornaar en arbejdsgiver skal anses for insolvent. Artikel 2, stk. 2, henviser til national ret, for saa vidt angaar definitionen af begreberne "arbejdstager" og "arbejdsgiver". Endelig kan medlemsstaterne ifoelge artikel 1, stk. 2, under naermere angivne betingelser undtagelsesvis udelukke visse kategorier af arbejdstagere, som er opregnet i direktivets bilag, fra direktivets anvendelsesomraade.
|
|
15 With regard to the content of the guarantee, Article 3 of the directive provides that measures must be taken to ensure the payment of outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships and relating to pay for the period prior to a date determined by the Member State, which may choose one of three possibilities: (a) the date of the onset of the employer' s insolvency; (b) that of the notice of dismissal issued to the employee concerned on account of the employer' s insolvency; (c) that of the onset of the employer' s insolvency or that on which the contract of employment or the employment relationship with the employee concerned was discontinued on account of the employer' s insolvency.
|
14 Disse bestemmelser er tilstraekkeligt praecise og ubetingede til, at de nationale domstole kan fastslaa, om en person er berettiget efter direktivet. De nationale domstole behoever nemlig blot at efterproeve, for det foerste, om den paagaeldende er arbejdstager efter national ret og ikke er udelukket fra direktivets anvendelsesomraade i medfoer af artikel 1, stk. 2, jf. bilag I (vedroerende betingelserne for udelukkelse, se dom af 2.2.1989, sag 22/87, Kommissionen mod Italien, praemis 18-23, og af 8.11.1990, sag C-53/88, Kommissionen mod Graekenland, Sml. s. 3917, paa s. 3931, praemis 11-26), og for det andet, om der foreligger et af de tilfaelde af insolvens, som er omhandlet i direktivets artikel 2.
|
|
16 Depending on the choice it makes, the Member State has the option, under Article 4(1) and (2), to restrict liability to periods of three months or eight weeks respectively, calculated in accordance with detailed rules laid down in that article. Finally, Article 4(3) provides that the Member States may set a ceiling on liability, in order to avoid the payment of sums going beyond the social objective of the directive. Where they exercise that option, the Member States must inform the Commission of the methods used to set the ceiling. In addition, Article 10 provides that the directive does not affect the option of Member States to take the measures necessary to avoid abuses and in particular to refuse or reduce liability in certain circumstances.
|
15 Hvad dernaest angaar garantiens indhold bestemmer direktivets artikel 3, at arbejdstagerne skal vaere sikret betaling af tilgodehavender, der hidroerer fra arbejdsaftaler eller ansaettelsesforhold, og som vedroerer loen for perioden inden en bestemt dato, der fastsaettes af medlemsstaten, som herved kan vaelge mellem tre forskellige muligheder, nemlig a) datoen, paa hvilken arbejdsgiverens insolvens er indtraadt, b) datoen for meddelelsen om den paagaeldende arbejdstagers opsigelse paa grund af arbejdsgiverens insolvens, eller c) datoen, paa hvilken arbejdsgiverens insolvens er indtraadt, eller paa hvilken den paagaeldende arbejdstagers arbejdsaftale eller ansaettelsesforhold er ophoert paa grund af arbejdsgiverens insolvens.
|
|
17 Article 3 of the directive thus leaves the Member State a discretion in determining the date from which payment of claims must be ensured. However, as is already implicit in the Court' s case-law (see the judgments in Case 71/85 Netherlands v FNV [1986] ECR 3855 and Case 286/85 McDermott and Cotter v Minister for Social Welfare and Attorney General [1987] ECR 1453, paragraph 15), the right of a State to choose among several possible means of achieving the result required by a directive does not preclude the possibility for individuals of enforcing before the national courts rights whose content can be determined sufficiently precisely on the basis of the provisions of the directive alone.
|
16 Den paagaeldende medlemsstat kan, afhaengig af det valg den har truffet, efter artikel 4, stk. 1 og 2, begraense betalingsforpligtelsen til perioder paa tre maaneder eller otte uger, som skal beregnes efter de regler, der er fastsat i artikel 4. Endelig kan medlemsstaterne efter artikel 4, stk. 3, fastsaette et loft over garantien for betaling af arbejdstageres tilgodehavender for at undgaa udbetaling af beloeb, der overstiger direktivets sociale sigte. Saafremt medlemsstaterne goer brug af denne mulighed, skal de underrette Kommissionen om fremgangsmaaderne ved fastsaettelse af loftet. Endvidere fremgaar det af artikel 10, at direktivet ikke beroerer medlemsstaternes mulighed for at traeffe de foranstaltninger, der maatte vaere noedvendige for at undgaa misbrug eller for at afvise eller begraense betalingspligten i visse tilfaelde.
|
|
18 In this case, the result required by the directive in question is a guarantee that the outstanding claims of employees will be paid in the event of the insolvency of their employer. The fact that Articles 3 and 4(1) and (2) give the Member States some discretion as regards the means of establishing that guarantee and the restriction of its amount do not affect the precise and unconditional nature of the result required.
|
17 Medlemsstaterne har altsaa efter direktivets artikel 3 et vist valg med hensyn til, fra hvilken dato garantien for betaling af tilgodehavenderne skal ydes. Som det imidlertid forudsaetningsvis fremgaar af Domstolens praksis (dom af 4.12.1986, sag 71/85, FNV, Sml. s. 3855, og af 24.3.1987, sag 286/85, McDermott og Cotter, Sml. s. 1453, praemis 15), udelukker den omstaendighed, at medlemsstaterne kan vaelge mellem flere forskellige midler til at naa det maal, som tilsigtes med direktivet, ikke, at private ved de nationale domstole kan goere de rettigheder gaeldende, som kan fastslaas med tilstraekkelig sikkerhed alene paa grundlag af direktivets bestemmelser.
|
|
19 As the Commission and the plaintiffs have pointed out, it is possible to determine the minimum guarantee provided for by the directive by taking the date whose choice entails the least liability for the guarantee institution. That date is that of the onset of the employer' s insolvency, since the two other dates, that of the notice of dismissal issued to the employee and that on which the contract of employment or the employment relationship was discontinued, are, according to the conditions laid down in Article 3, necessarily subsequent to the onset of the insolvency and thus define a longer period in respect of which the payment of claims must be ensured.
|
18 Det maal, som skal opnaas ifoelge det i sagen omhandlede direktiv, er at sikre betalingen af arbejdstagernes tilgodehavender i tilfaelde af arbejdsgiverens insolvens. Den omstaendighed, at medlemsstaterne efter artikel 3 og artikel 4, stk. 1 og 2, har et vist skoen med hensyn til fremgangsmaaderne ved fastsaettelsen af garantien og med hensyn til begraensningen af garantibeloebet, fratager ikke det foreskrevne maal dets praecise og ubetingede karakter.
|
|
20 The possibility under Article 4(2) of limiting the guarantee does not make it impossible to determine the minimum guarantee. It follows from the wording of that article that the Member States have the option of limiting the guarantees granted to employees to certain periods prior to the date referred to in Article 3. Those periods are fixed in relation to each of the three dates provided for in Article 3, so that it is always possible to determine to what extent the Member State could have reduced the guarantee provided for by the directive depending on the date which it would have chosen if it had transposed the directive.
|
19 Som anfoert af Kommissionen og sagsoegerne kan direktivets minimumsgaranti nemlig fastslaas ved at laegge den dato til grund, som vil indebaere de mindst tyngende forpligtelser for garantiinstitutionen. Denne dato er tidspunktet for indtraedelsen af arbejdsgiverens insolvens, da de to andre datoer - nemlig henholdsvis den dato, hvorpaa arbejdstageren modtager meddelelse om sin opsigelse, og den dato, hvorpaa arbejdsaftalen eller ansaettelsesforholdet ophoerer - ifoelge betingelserne i artikel 3 noedvendigvis maa ligge paa et senere tidspunkt end insolvensens indtraedelse, hvorfor de vil medfoere, at den periode, for hvilken betalingen af tilgodehavenderne skal sikres, bliver laengere.
|
|
21 As regards Article 4(3), according to which the Member States may set a ceiling on liability in order to avoid the payment of sums going beyond the social objective of the directive, and Article 10, which states that the directive does not affect the option of Member States to take the measures necessary to avoid abuses, it should be observed that a Member State which has failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose a directive cannot defeat the rights which the directive creates for the benefit of individuals by relying on the option of limiting the amount of the guarantee which it could have exercised if it had taken the measures necessary to implement the directive (see, in relation to an analogous option concerning the prevention of abuse in fiscal matters, the judgment in Case 8/81 Becker v Finanzamt Muenster-Innenstadt [1982] ECR 53, paragraph 34).
|
20 Hvad angaar muligheden for at begraense garantien efter direktivet, bemaerkes, at denne mulighed ikke udelukker, at minimumsgarantien kan fastslaas. Det fremgaar nemlig af denne bestemmelses ordlyd, at medlemsstaterne kan begraense de garantier, som tilsikres arbejdstagerne, til bestemte perioder, som ligger forud for datoen i henhold til artikel 3. Disse perioder skal saaledes fastsaettes i forhold til hver af de tre datoer, som er naevnt i artikel 3, og det kan derfor under alle omstaendigheder fastslaas, hvor meget medlemsstaten kunne have begraenset garantien efter direktivet, under hensyn til den dato den ville have valgt, saafremt den havde gennemfoert direktivet.
|
|
22 It must therefore be held that the provisions in question are unconditional and sufficiently precise as regards the content of the guarantee.
|
21 Hvad angaar artikel 4, stk. 3, hvorefter medlemsstaterne kan fastsaette et loft over betalingsgarantien for at undgaa udbetaling af beloeb, der overstiger direktivets sociale sigte, og artikel 10, hvorefter direktivet ikke beroerer medlemsstaternes mulighed for at traeffe de foranstaltninger, som er noedvendige for at undgaa misbrug, bemaerkes, at en medlemsstat, som har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser til at gennemfoere direktivet, ikke kan beroeve private de rettigheder, direktivet tillaegger dem med henvisning til, at den havde mulighed for at begraense garantibeloebet og kunne have valgt denne mulighed, hvis den havde truffet de noedvendige foranstaltninger til direktivets gennemfoerelse (jf. dom af 19.1.1982, sag 8/81, Becker, Sml. s. 53, praemis 34, om en tilsvarende befoejelse med henblik paa at forhindre misbrug inden for det fiskale omraade).
|
|
23 Finally, as regards the identity of the person liable to provide the guarantee, Article 5 of the directive provides that:
|
22 Det maa herefter fastslaas, at de omhandlede bestemmelser er ubetingede og tilstraekkelig praecise, for saa vidt angaar garantiens indhold.
|
|
"Member States shall lay down detailed rules for the organization, financing and operation of the guarantee institutions, complying with the following principles in particular:
|
23 Hvad endelig angaar spoergsmaalet om, hvem garantien paahviler, bestemmer direktivets artikel 5:
|
|
(a) the assets of the institutions shall be independent of the employers' operating capital and be inaccessible to proceedings for insolvency;
|
"Medlemsstaterne fastsaetter de naermere bestemmelser vedroerende garantiinstitutionernes opbygning, finansiering og virksomhed, navnlig under iagttagelse af foelgende principper:
|
|
(b) employers shall contribute to financing, unless it is fully covered by the public authorities;
|
a) Institutionernes aktiver skal vaere uafhaengige af arbejdsgivernes driftskapital og foreligge paa en saadan maade, at der ikke kan goeres udlaeg under en procedure i tilfaelde af insolvens.
|
|
(c) the institutions' liabilities shall not depend on whether or not obligations to contribute to financing have been fulfilled."
|
b) Arbejdsgiverne skal bidrage til finansieringen, medmindre denne sikres fuldstaendigt af offentlige myndigheder.
|
|
24 It has been submitted that since the directive provides for the possibility that the guarantee institutions may be financed entirely by the public authorities, it is unacceptable that a Member State may thwart the effects of the directive by asserting that it could have required other persons to bear part or all of the financial burden resting upon it.
|
c) Institutionernes betalingspligt bestaar uanset om forpligtelserne til at bidrage til finansieringen er opfyldt."
|
|
25 That argument cannot be upheld. It follows from the terms of the directive that the Member State is required to organize an appropriate institutional guarantee system. Under Article 5, the Member State has a broad discretion with regard to the organization, operation and financing of the guarantee institutions. The fact, referred to by the Commission, that the directive envisages as one possibility among others that such a system may be financed entirely by the public authorities cannot mean that the State can be identified as the person liable for unpaid claims. The payment obligation lies with the guarantee institutions, and it is only in exercising its power to organize the guarantee system that the State may provide that the guarantee institutions are to be financed entirely by the public authorities. In those circumstances the State takes on an obligation which in principle is not its own.
|
24 Det er blevet gjort gaeldende, at naar der efter direktivet er mulighed for at lade de offentlige myndigheder overtage den fulde finansiering af garantiinstitutionerne, er det uantageligt, at en medlemsstat skulle kunne beroeve direktivet dets virkninger under henvisning til, at den kunne have paalagt andre at baere en del af eller hele den oekonomiske byrde i forbindelse hermed.
|
|
26 Accordingly, even though the provisions of the directive in question are sufficiently precise and unconditional as regards the determination of the persons entitled to the guarantee and as regards the content of that guarantee, those elements are not sufficient to enable individuals to rely on those provisions before the national courts. Those provisions do not identify the person liable to provide the guarantee, and the State cannot be considered liable on the sole ground that it has failed to take transposition measures within the prescribed period.
|
25 Denne argumentation kan ikke tages til foelge. Det fremgaar af direktivets ordlyd, at medlemsstaten er forpligtet til at indfoere en hensigtsmaessig garantiordning. Ifoelge artikel 5 raader medlemsstaten over et vidt skoen ved fastsaettelsen af de naermere bestemmelser for garantiinstitutionernes opbygning, finansiering og virksomhed. Den omstaendighed, som er anfoert af Kommissionen, at det efter direktivet er muligt, som én blandt flere muligheder, at lade det offentlige overtage hele finansieringen af ordningen, er ikke ensbetydende med, at staten kan betragtes som debitor for de ubetalte fordringer. Betalingspligten paahviler garantiinstitutionerne, og det er alene som led i sin befoejelse til at bestemme den naermere opbygning af garantiordningen, at staten kan foreskrive, at det offentlige skal overtage hele finansieringen af garantiinstitutionerne. I saa fald overtager staten en forpligtelse, den som udgangspunkt ikke har.
|
|
27 The answer to the first part of the first question must therefore be that the provisions of Directive 80/987 which determine the rights of employees must be interpreted as meaning that the persons concerned cannot enforce those rights against the State before the national courts where no implementing measures are adopted within the prescribed period.
|
26 Selv om de omhandlede direktivbestemmelser saaledes er tilstraekkelig praecise og ubetingede med hensyn til fastlaeggelsen af den personkreds, som er omfattet af garantien, og af garantiens indhold, er dette ikke tilstraekkeligt til, at private kan paaberaabe sig disse bestemmelser ved de nationale domstole. For det foerste fremgaar det nemlig ikke af disse bestemmelser, hvem der er debitor for garantien, og for det andet kan staten ikke anses som debitor, alene fordi den ikke rettidigt har truffet gennemfoerelsesforanstaltninger.
|
|
Liability of the State for loss and damage resulting from breach of its obligations under Community law
|
27 Den foerste del af det foerste spoergsmaal maa herefter besvares med, at bestemmelserne i direktiv 80/987 vedroerende fastlaeggelsen af arbejdstagernes rettigheder skal fortolkes saaledes, at arbejdstagere ikke kan paaberaabe sig disse rettigheder ved de nationale domstole over for en medlemsstat, naar der ikke er truffet rettidige gennemfoerelsesforanstaltninger.
|
|
28 In the second part of the first question the national court seeks to determine whether a Member State is obliged to make good loss and damage suffered by individuals as a result of the failure to transpose Directive 80/987.
|
Statens erstatningsansvar for tab paa grund af tilsidesaettelse af dens forpligtelser efter faellesskabsretten
|
|
29 The national court thus raises the issue of the existence and scope of a State' s liability for loss and damage resulting from breach of its obligations under Community law.
|
28 Den anden del af det foerste spoergsmaal drejer sig om, hvorvidt en medlemsstat er forpligtet til at erstatte tab, som forvoldes private paa grund af den manglende gennemfoerelse af direktiv 80/987.
|
|
30 That issue must be considered in the light of the general system of the Treaty and its fundamental principles.
|
29 Den nationale ret rejser hermed det problem, om en stat ifalder ansvar for tab, som er forvoldt private paa grund af tilsidesaettelse af de forpligtelser, der paahviler staten efter faellesskabsretten, og i bekraeftende fald i hvilket omfang.
|
|
(a) The existence of State liability as a matter of principle
|
30 Dette problem maa vurderes paa baggrund af Traktatens opbygning og dens grundlaeggende principper.
|
|
31 It should be borne in mind at the outset that the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system, which is integrated into the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply. The subjects of that legal system are not only the Member States but also their nationals. Just as it imposes burdens on individuals, Community law is also intended to give rise to rights which become part of their legal patrimony. Those rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the Treaty but also by virtue of obligations which the Treaty imposes in a clearly defined manner both on individuals and on the Member States and the Community institutions (see the judgments in Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1 and Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585).
|
a) Det principielle spoergsmaal om statens ansvar
|
|
32 Furthermore, it has been consistently held that the national courts whose task it is to apply the provisions of Community law in areas within their jurisdiction must ensure that those rules take full effect and must protect the rights which they confer on individuals (see in particular the judgments in Case 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, paragraph 16, and Case C-213/89 Factortame [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 19).
|
31 Indledningsvis bemaerkes, at der ved EOEF-Traktaten er indfoert en saerlig retsorden, som er integreret i medlemsstaternes retssystemer, og som skal anvendes af deres retsinstanser. Retssubjekterne herfor er ikke blot medlemsstaterne, men ogsaa disses statsborgere. Faellesskabsretten paalaegger saaledes ikke blot borgerne forpligtelser, men giver dem ogsaa rettigheder, som dermed bliver en del af de rettigheder, der som helhed tilkommer borgerne. Disse rettigheder bestaar ikke blot, naar de udtrykkeligt er indroemmet i Traktaten, men ogsaa, naar Traktaten paalaegger private, medlemsstaterne eller Faellesskabets institutioner entydige forpligtelser (jf. dom af 5.2.1963, sag 26/62, Van Gend en Loos, Sml. 1954-1964, s. 375, og af 15.7.1964, sag 6/64, Costa, Sml. 1954-1964, s. 531).
|
|
33 The full effectiveness of Community rules would be impaired and the protection of the rights which they grant would be weakened if individuals were unable to obtain redress when their rights are infringed by a breach of Community law for which a Member State can be held responsible.
|
32 Endvidere bemaerkes, at det efter Domstolens faste praksis paahviler de nationale retter, som led i deres forpligtelse til at anvende faellesskabsretten inden for deres kompetenceomraade, at sikre faellesskabsrettens fulde virkning og at beskytte de rettigheder, som denne tillaegger private (jf. navnlig dom af 9.3.1978, sag 106/77, Simmenthal, Sml. s. 629, praemis 16, og af 19.6.1990, sag C-213/89, Factortame, Sml. I, s. 2433, praemis 19).
|
|
34 The possibility of obtaining redress from the Member State is particularly indispensable where, as in this case, the full effectiveness of Community rules is subject to prior action on the part of the State and where, consequently, in the absence of such action, individuals cannot enforce before the national courts the rights conferred upon them by Community law.
|
33 Faellesskabsrettens fulde virkning ville blive afsvaekket, og beskyttelsen af de i faellesskabsretten anerkendte rettigheder ville blive forringet, saafremt private var afskaaret fra at opnaa erstatning for en kraenkelse af deres rettigheder som foelge af en tilsidesaettelse af faellesskabsretten, der maa tilregnes en medlemsstat.
|
|
35 It follows that the principle whereby a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaty.
|
34 Det er navnlig noedvendigt, at der bestaar en adgang til at goere erstatningskrav gaeldende mod en medlemsstat i tilfaelde, hvor faellesskabsrettens fulde virkning afhaenger af, at der traeffes foranstaltninger fra medlemsstatens side, saaledes som i denne sag, og hvor private derfor ikke kan paaberaabe sig de i faellesskabsretten anerkendte rettigheder ved de nationale domstole, naar medlemsstaten ikke har truffet saadanne foranstaltninger.
|
|
36 A further basis for the obligation of Member States to make good such loss and damage is to be found in Article 5 of the Treaty, under which the Member States are required to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of their obligations under Community law. Among these is the obligation to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of Community law (see, in relation to the analogous provision of Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty, the judgment in Case 6/60 Humblet v Belgium [1960] ECR 559).
|
35 Der foelger saaledes af selve Traktatens system et princip om, at staten er erstatningsansvarlig for tab, som er forvoldt private paa grund af tilsidesaettelser af faellesskabsretten, der maa tilregnes staten.
|
|
37 It follows from all the foregoing that it is a principle of Community law that the Member States are obliged to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held responsible.
|
36 Medlemsstaternes forpligtelse til at erstatte et saadant tab har endvidere hjemmel i Traktatens artikel 5, hvorefter medlemsstaterne skal traeffe alle almindelige eller saerlige foranstaltninger, som er egnet til at sikre opfyldelsen af de forpligtelser, der paahviler dem efter faellesskabsretten. Hertil maa ogsaa regnes forpligtelsen til at bringe ulovlige foelgevirkninger af en tilsidesaettelse af faellesskabsretten til ophoer (jf. vedroerende den tilsvarende bestemmelse i EKSF-Traktatens artikel 86, dom af 16.12.1960, sag 6/60, Humblet, Sml. 1954-1964, s. 207).
|
|
(b) The conditions for State liability
|
37 Af det anfoerte foelger, at det er et princip i faellesskabsretten, at medlemsstaterne er forpligtet til at erstatte tab, som er forvoldt private som foelge af tilsidesaettelser af faellesskabsretten, der maa tilregnes medlemsstaterne.
|
|
38 Although State liability is thus required by Community law, the conditions under which that liability gives rise to a right to reparation depend on the nature of the breach of Community law giving rise to the loss and damage.
|
b) Betingelser for statens ansvar
|
|
39 Where, as in this case, a Member State fails to fulfil its obligation under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty to take all the measures necessary to achieve the result prescribed by a directive, the full effectiveness of that rule of Community law requires that there should be a right to reparation provided that three conditions are fulfilled.
|
38 Medens princippet om statens ansvar saaledes foelger af faellesskabsretten, afhaenger betingelserne for, at der kan kraeves erstatning paa dette grundlag, af den tilsidesaettelse af faellesskabsretten, der har forvoldt tabet.
|
|
40 The first of those conditions is that the result prescribed by the directive should entail the grant of rights to individuals. The second condition is that it should be possible to identify the content of those rights on the basis of the provisions of the directive. Finally, the third condition is the existence of a causal link between the breach of the State' s obligation and the loss and damage suffered by the injured parties.
|
39 Naar en medlemsstat, som det er tilfaeldet i denne sag, tilsidesaetter sin forpligtelse efter Traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, til at traeffe alle de foranstaltninger, som er noedvendige for at naa det maal, der tilsigtes med et direktiv, er det, for at sikre denne traktatbestemmelses fulde virkning, noedvendigt, at der kan kraeves erstatning, naar foelgende tre betingelser er opfyldt.
|
|
41 Those conditions are sufficient to give rise to a right on the part of individuals to obtain reparation, a right founded directly on Community law.
|
40 Den foerste betingelse er, at det maal, der tilsigtes med direktivet, indebaerer, at private tillaegges rettigheder. Den anden betingelse er, at indholdet af disse rettigheder kan fastslaas paa grundlag af selve direktivets bestemmelser. Endelig er den tredje betingelse, at der er aarsagsforbindelse mellem statens tilsidesaettelse af sin forpligtelse og de skadelidtes tab.
|
|
42 Subject to that reservation, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss and damage caused. In the absence of Community legislation, it is for the internal legal order of each Member State to designate the competent courts and lay down the detailed procedural rules for legal proceedings intended fully to safeguard the rights which individuals derive from Community law (see the judgments in Case 60/75 Russo v AIMA [1976] ECR 45, Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirstschaftskammer Saarland [1976] ECR 1989 and Case 158/80 Rewe v Hauptzollamt Kiel [1981] ECR 1805).
|
41 Saafremt disse betingelser er opfyldt, har private et krav paa erstatning, der foelger direkte af faellesskabsretten.
|
|
43 Further, the substantive and procedural conditions for reparation of loss and damage laid down by the national law of the Member States must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims and must not be so framed as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (see, in relation to the analogous issue of the repayment of taxes levied in breach of Community law, inter alia the judgment in Case 199/82 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595).
|
42 Med dette forbehold gennemfoeres statens erstatningsansvar for det forvoldte tab efter nationale erstatningsregler. Saa laenge der ikke er udstedt EF-regler paa omraadet, tilkommer det hver enkelt medlemsstat i sin interne retsorden at udpege de kompetente retter og fastsaette procesreglerne for soegsmaal med henblik paa at sikre den fulde beskyttelse af borgernes rettigheder efter faellesskabsretten (jf. dom af 22.1.1976, sag 60/75, Russo, Sml. s. 45, af 16.12.1976, sag 33/76, Rewe, Sml. s. 1989, og af 7.7.1981, sag 158/80, Rewe, Sml. s. 1805).
|
|
44 In this case, the breach of Community law by a Member State by virtue of its failure to transpose Directive 80/987 within the prescribed period has been confirmed by a judgment of the Court. The result required by that directive entails the grant to employees of a right to a guarantee of payment of their unpaid wage claims. As is clear from the examination of the first part of the first question, the content of that right can be identified on the basis of the provisions of the directive.
|
43 Endvidere bemaerkes, at de formelle og materielle betingelser i medlemsstaternes nationale lovgivning for erstatning af tab ikke maa vaere mindre gunstige end de betingelser, der gaelder for tilsvarende soegsmaal paa grundlag af national ret, og ikke maa vaere udformet saaledes, at de i praksis goer det umuligt eller urimeligt vanskeligt at opnaa erstatning (jf. for saa vidt angaar det beslaegtede spoergsmaal om tilbagesoegning af afgifter opkraevet i strid med faellesskabsretten, dom af 9.11.1983, sag 199/82, San Giorgio, Sml. s. 3595).
|
|
45 Consequently, the national court must, in accordance with the national rules on liability, uphold the right of employees to obtain reparation of loss and damage caused to them as a result of failure to transpose the directive.
|
44 Vedroerende naervaerende sag bemaerkes, at det ved en dom afsagt af Domstolen er fastslaaet, at en medlemsstat har tilsidesat faellesskabsretten ved ikke at have truffet rettidige gennemfoerelsesforanstaltninger til direktiv 80/987. Det maal, som tilsigtes med dette direktiv, er at yde arbejdstagerne sikkerhed for betaling af deres loentilgodehavender. Som det fremgaar af gennemgangen af den foerste del af det foerste spoergsmaal, kan indholdet af denne ret fastslaas paa grundlag af direktivets bestemmelser.
|
|
46 The answer to be given to the national court must therefore be that a Member State is required to make good loss and damage caused to individuals by failure to transpose Directive 80/987.
|
45 Det paahviler herefter den nationale domstol at paase, at der efter nationale erstatningsregler ydes arbejdstagerne erstatning for det tab, de har lidt, som foelge af den manglende gennemfoerelse af direktivet.
|
|
The second and third questions
|
46 Herefter maa denne del af den nationale rets spoergsmaal besvares med, at en medlemsstat ifalder erstatningsansvar for privates tab som foelge af den manglende gennemfoerelse af direktiv 80/987.
|
|
47 In view of the reply to the first question referred by the national court, there is no need to rule on the second and third questions.
|
Andet og tredje spoergsmaal
|
|
|
47 Henset til besvarelsen af det foerste spoergsmaal er det ufornoedent at tage stilling til det andet og det tredje spoergsmaal.
|