Judgment of the Court of 7 November 2000 in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conservation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and social considerations — Severn Estuary)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family protection, interpretation of the law, protected area, protection of plant life, wildlife

C 28/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

P. Steinmetz, assisted by J. Welter) v European Parliament
(Agents: originally represented by C. Pennera, and A. Baas, and
subsequently by C. Pennera and J. Sant’Anna) and Council of
the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton),
supported by Kingdom of Spain,
(Agent: M. Lo´ pez-Monı´s
Gallego, Abogado del Estado) by Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agent: M.A. Fierstra) by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins and D. Anderson, and by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiro
and B. Mongin, — application for a annulment of Directive
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,
p. 36) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P.
Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
the Commission of the European Communities to bear their
own costs.

(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.

(Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Schutzver-
band gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV and Warsteiner
Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG — on the interpret-
ation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
1992 on the protection of geographical
indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
(OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´-
guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward,
J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
Jacobs, Advocate General;
and F. Macken,
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:

Judges; F.G.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs does not preclude the application
of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use
of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no
link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical
provenance.

(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 November 2000

in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen
in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer
GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope —
Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the
potentially misleading use of ‘simple’ geographical indi-
cations of source)

(2001/C 28/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-312/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 November 2000

in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the
High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen
v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
the Regions (1)

(Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries
of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conser-
vation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and
social considerations — Severn Estuary)

(2001/C 28/04)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-371/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Queen’s Bench
Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/3

England and Wales, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd,
interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and
Avon Wildlife Trust — on the interpretation of Articles 2(3)
and 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n and R. Schintgen,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:

of England and Wales (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom — on the interpretation
of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964,
p. 117) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting as President
of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevo´ n (Rapporte-
ur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
2000, in which it has ruled:

On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account
of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local
characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when
selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to
the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community
importance.

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 November 2000

in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (1)

Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be
interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of
a Member State refusing a Community national, not in possession of
a residence permit, leave to enter its territory cannot be classified as a
‘decision concerning entry’ within the meaning of Article 8 thereof in
a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the person
concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory of that Member
State, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the
investigation of her case, and therefore resided for almost seven
months in that territory before that decision was notified to her, since
such a national must be entitled to the procedural safeguards referred
to in Article 9 of Directive 64/221.

The time which elapsed after the competent authority’s decision as a
result, first, of the suspensory effect of legal proceedings and, second,
of the grant of permission to take up employment pending the
determination of those proceedings, cannot have any bearing on the
classification of that decision under Directive 64/221.

(Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations —
Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admis-
sion — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8
and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)

(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.

(2001/C 28/05)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-357/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal