Anda di halaman 1dari 1

29.8.

2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di which allows no derogation from the requirement to draw
Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2009 — Criminal up a safety and health plan where the work concerned
proceedings against Martha Nussbaumer involves particular risks, as set out in Annex II to the
Directive?
(Case C-224/09)

(2009/C 205/42)
(1) OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6.
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court
Tribunale di Bolzano

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di


Pace di Cortona (Italy) lodged on 19 June 2009 —
Joanna Jakubowska Edyta v Alessandro Maneggia
Party to the main proceedings
(Case C-225/09)
Martha Nussbaumer
(2009/C 205/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Questions referred Referring court


1. Is the national legislation enacted by Legislative Decree No Giudice di Pace di Cortona
81 of 9 April 2008, in particular the rule in Article 90(11)
thereof, in breach of the rules laid down in Article 3 of
Directive 92/57/EEC, (1) in so far as it derogates, for private
works not subject to planning permission, from the
requirement imposed on the client or the project supervisor Parties to the main proceedings
in Article 90(3) of the decree to appoint a coordinator for
Applicant: Joanna Jakubowska Edyta
the preparation stage for a construction site on which more
than one contractor is present and fails to give any
consideration to the nature of the works or to whether
there are particular risks of the kind listed in Annex II to Defendant: Alessandro Maneggia
the directive?

Questions referred
2. Is the national legislation enacted by Legislative Decree No 1. Must Articles 3(g), 4, 10, 81 and 98 of the Treaty estab­
81 of 9 April 2008, in particular the rule in Article 90(11) lishing the European Community be interpreted as
thereof, in breach of the rules laid down in Article 3 of precluding national rules, such as those in Articles 1 and
Directive 92/57/EEC with respect to the requirement for the 2 of Law No 339 of 25 November 2003 which reintroduce
client or the project supervisor to appoint, in all cases, a the incompatibility of the practice of law by part-time
coordinator during the execution stage of works on public employees and prohibit such employees from prac­
construction sites, irrespective of the type of works tising as lawyers, despite being qualified to do so, by laying
concerned, and hence also in the case of private works down that such lawyers shall be struck off the register by
not subject to planning permission which may entail the the competent Bar Council unless the public employee opts
risks referred to in Annex II to the Directive? to relinquish his salaried post?

2. Must Articles 3(g), 4, 10, and 98 of the Treaty establishing


3. Is Article 90(11) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 9 April the European Community be interpreted as precluding
2008, in so far as it requires the coordinator for the national rules, such as those in Articles 1 and 2 of Law
execution stage to draw up a safety plan only if, in the No 339 of 25 November 2003 which reintroduce the
case of private works not subject to planning permission, incompatibility of the practice of law by part-time public
other undertakings besides the original contractor appointed employees and prohibit such employees from practising as
become involved in the course of the project, in breach of lawyers, despite being qualified to do so, by laying down
Article 3 of Directive 92/57/EEC, which requires a coor­ that such lawyers shall be struck off the register by the
dinator for the execution stage to be appointed in all competent Bar Council unless the public employee opts to
cases, irrespective of the type of works involved, and relinquish his salaried post?