Case C-423/00: Action brought on 16 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard

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.