Case C-427/00: Action brought on 20 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bathing water, quality standard, royalism

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/19

Action brought on 16 November 2000 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against

Question 1

Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-423/00)

(2001/C 28/35)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

Does Paragraph 9 of the LMG constitute an appropriate
transposition of Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive
79/112/EEC (1) of 18 December 1978?

Question 2

Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC make exhaustive
provision concerning unlawful labelling, or does that provision
provide for a minimum level of regulation which may be
supplemented by national provisions?

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Question 3

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and/or administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996
on the control of major-accident hazards involving
dangerous substances (1), and in any event by failing to
inform the Commission of such provisions, the Kingdom
of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Directive;

2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 3 February 1999.

Is Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC to be construed to
mean that a restriction on labelling (such as that in Paragraph
9(1) of the LMG in regard to health-related information) is
only permissible where a prohibition appears to be an
unavoidable necessity in order to prevent consumers from
being misled?

Question 4

Can Paragraph 9(1) of the LMG be interpreted so as to comply
with the directive and the restriction on labelling mentioned
therein be deemed to be in conformity with Article 2(1)(b) of
Directive 79/112/EEC? This would be possible inasmuch as an
intention to mislead is not required by Article 2(1)[(b)] as a
whole but is a second criterion of the unlawfulness of a label.

(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.

(1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of 15 November 2000
in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt
Wien

Action brought on 20 November 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
Kingdom

(Case C-426/00)

(2001/C 28/36)

(Case C-427/00)

(2001/C 28/37)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 November 2000 of the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Independent Adminis-
trative Chamber, Vienna), which was received at the Court
Registry on 20 November, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Vienna
municipal authorities) on the following questions:

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Novem-
ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
office of Mr Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, a member of the
Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
Luxembourg.

C 28/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to ensure that bathing waters in
the United Kingdom comply with the limit values set in
accordance with Article 3 of Directive 76/160/EC (1), the
United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4 of the Directive 76/160/CEE requires Member States
to have taken all necessary measures, within 10 years following
notification of the Directive, to ensure that the quality of
bathing water conforms to the limit values set out in the
Annex.

The Commission notes that, despite efforts to improve com-
pliance, the United Kingdom is continuing to fail to meet the
requirements of the directive. The Commission must conclude,
its
therefore, that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
obligations in terms of the Directive.

Appeal brought on 21 November 2000 by Anton Dürbeck
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 19 December
2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between
Anton Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the
European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
Spain and the French Republic

(Case C-430/00 P)

(2001/C 28/39)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between Anton
Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the French
Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 21 November 2000 by Anton
Dürbeck GmbH, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt,
Berrenrather Straße 313, D-50937 Köln.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

Set aside the contested judgment;

2. Annul the contested decision of the Commission of

10 July 1997 relating to the case of hardship;

3. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning

the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Genova by order of that court of 11 November 2000
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova

(Case C-429/00)

(2001/C 28/38)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(District Court), Genoa, of 20 November 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 11 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on
questions which are in substance identical to those referred in
Case C-388/00 (1).

(1) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.

— The Court of First Instance erred in not undertaking
a critical appraisal of the applicant’s submissions on
infringement of the principle of equivalence. The defend-
ant had first referred to the ‘interest in the equal treatment
of all traders’ in its defence. The applicant was entitled to
state its position on this not solely for the purpose of
refuting the defendant’s plea.

— Owing to an incorrect appreciation of

the contract
between the applicant and Consultban, the Court of First
Instance concluded that the Commission had correctly
established the amount of the compensation to which the
applicant was entitled.

— The Court of First

Instance erred in approving the
Commission’s refusal to take the licences granted in order
to compensate losses in cases of hardship into account
for the purpose of determining future reference quantities.
The Commission was not entitled to adopt the approach
of providing compensation by allocating licences in cases
of hardship if that approach meant that it could not
take those licences into account for the purpose of
determining reference quantities for future years. Once it
adopted that approach, however, the effect of the binding
rule in Article 19 of Regulation No 404/93 was such that
the Commission could not then refuse to take those
licences into account for the purpose of determining
reference quantities for future years if, owing to further
developments in the organisation of
in
bananas, the applicant received excessive compensation
for its loss.

the market