Case C-418/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2001-01-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, authorised catch, catch quota, fishing regulations

C 4/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.1.2001

Action brought on 20 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-389/00)

(2001/C 4/02)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of the same service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by adopting the AbfalIverbringungsgesetz
(Law on the Transfer of Waste) of 30 September 1994,
establishing a solidarity fund for the return of waste, the
Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations
under Articles 23 and 25 EC;

2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the obligation on exporters of
waste under the German Abfallverbringungsgesetz to pay
membership contributions to the solidarity fund is incompat-
ible with Community law in so far as the solidarity fund
assumes the costs of reimporting waste (including its disposal
and recycling) in the cases referred to in Articles 25 and 26 of
Council Regulation 259/93, (1) which are imposed on the
exporting Member State in the event of it being impracticable
to charge the notifier (Article 33(2) of Regulation 259/93). To
that extent, the contribution constitutes a burden imposed
unilaterally on domestic goods on account of their crossing
the frontier. Contrary to the defendant’s view, the relevant part
of the contribution cannot be regarded as appropriate payment
for a service actually and individually provided by the adminis-
tration to an economic operator. The financing of the second-
ary State liability expressly provided for in Article 33(2) of
Regulation No 259/93 cannot be described as a ‘particular or
individual advantage’.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and
out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2408/98 of 6 November
1998 (OJ 1998 L 298, p. 19).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of that
court of 19 September 2000 in the cases of Giovanni
Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione Frodi
and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Politiche
Agricole

(Cases C-390/00 and C-391/00)

(2001/C 4/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari,
Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano (Bari District Court, Rutigliano
Division) of 19 September 2000, received at the Court Registry
on 24 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione
Frodi and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Poli-
tiche Agricole on the following questions:

(1)

Is Law No 460 of 1987, Article 4 of which provides for
penalties in respect of provisions of Community law laid
down by regulations which have now been repealed, (1)
applicable for the purposes of enforcing rules laid down
in new regulations?

(2)

Is the administrative penalty at issue disproportionate in
effect to the offence, contrary to the principle of fair
punishment?

(1) With reference, in particular, to Council Regulation No 822/87 of

16 March 1987 (OJ L 84 of 27.3.1987, p. 1).

Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French
Republic

(Case C-418/00)

(2001/C 4/04)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of C. Go´ mez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.

6.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 4/3

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court of Justice should:

Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French
Republic

1. Declare that

— by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules
for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
for the fishing years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994;

— by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
rules on the conservation of species through suf-
ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
and recordal of catches;

— by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels
flying the French flag or registered in France when
the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-
ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting
fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
had been exceeded by far,
in the 1991, 1992,
1993 and 1994 fishing years;

— by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 fishing years;

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, (1)
Article 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC)
No 2241/87, (2) Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3) and Article 9(2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (4).

2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case C-333/99 (5) concerning the same infringe-
ments in 1988 and 1990.

(1) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207 of 29.07.1987, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
(OJ 1992 L 389, p, 1).
(5) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 17.

(Case C-419/00)

(2001/C 4/05)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
Adviser, and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
C. Go´ mez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court of Justice should:

1. Declare that

— by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules
for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
for the fishing years 1995 and 1996;

— by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
rules on the conservation of species through suf-
ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
and recordal of catches;

— by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels
flying the French flag or registered in France when
the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-
ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting
fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
had been exceeded by far, in the 1995 and 1996
fishing years;

— by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
the 1995 and 1996 fishing years;

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 9(2) of Regulation TEC) No 3760/92 (1) and
Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
in conjunction with Regulations (EEC) Nos 3362/94 (3)
and 3074/95 (4);