Case C-131/01: Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, patent law, residence, right of establishment

C 150/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-10/01)

(2001/C 150/30)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction pro-
grammes including quality objectives for the 99 danger-
ous substances listed in the Annex and failing to com-
municate to the Commission summaries of those pro-
grammes and the results of their implementation, con-
trary to Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, (1) the French
Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the
Treaty;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although the French Republic has communicated a certain
number of measures supposedly constituting a national pro-
gramme as referred to in Article 7(1) of the Directive,
it
challenges, in a manner that becomes more marked as its
correspondence progresses, the duty to implement reduction
programmes under Article 7 of the Directive including quality
the Directive.
objectives for the substances in List
Although the French Republic has implemented certain
measures intended to combat pollution by dangerous sub-
stances, those measures do not amount to proper implemen-
tation of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC as regards the
implementation of programmes to reduce pollution caused by
the relevant substances in List II including quality objectives
for water into which those substances are discharged.

II of

As regards the establishment of programmes, in 1991 the
French Republic communicated a ‘national programme’ com-
prising a series of uncoordinated measures with no objectives
or overall schedule. The ‘sectoral programmes’ contained
therein are in fact no more than a description of the legal
framework applicable (or even just contemplated), resulting
from national legislation relating to facilities classified as being
for the protection of the environment, and do not contain any
specific plans or concrete objectives to reduce pollution by the
dangerous substances referred to in List II or for those of the
99 priority substances relevant in the national context for the

French Republic, or implementation deadlines. The ‘local
recycling programmes for eliminating the main types of
industrial waste’ communicated at the same time are, even
taking into account subsequent exchanges of correspondence,
very imprecise, contain no schedule or timetable, and do not
cover the whole of France.

In relation to the laws and regulations communicated, which
relate to the conditions for being granted prior authorisation
with emission standards, the Commission considers that a
system of prior authorisation in relation to the discharge
of dangerous substances cannot, however indispensable, be
considered to render the programmes referred to in Article 7
of the Directive superfluous.

As regards the quality objectives for water into which the
substances in List II are discharged, throughout their corre-
spondence the authorities in the French Republic manifested
an increasing reluctance to implement such objectives. As for
the only quality objectives
the measures communicated,
referred to in the correspondence from the French Government
relate to water-courses, not to inland water, sea water or near-
shore waters. Furthermore the objectives referred to are too
imprecise to comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the
Directive.

(1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution cause
by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129 p. 23).

Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-131/01)

(2001/C 150/31)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
Court of Justice on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin and
Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— Declare that, by keeping in force rules requiring patent
consultants residing in other Member States to be entered
on the Italian register of patent consultants and to have a
residence or professional address in Italy in order to
provide services involving dealings with the Patent Office,
its obligations
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
under Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty regarding the
freedom to provide services;

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/17

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas and principal arguments

(a) Article 94 of Royal Decree No 1127 of 29 June 1939
prevents industrial property consultants properly pursu-
ing their profession in other Member States but not
entered on the requisite register in Italy from acting,
occasionally and on a temporary basis, as agents in
dealings with the Patent Office on behalf of clients who
approach them for that purpose.

In the Commissions’s view, that requirement is contrary
to Article 49 of the EC Treaty: although it is true that, in
the absence of harmonisation, Member States are in
principle competent to define the requirements for access
to the practice of an activity, that does not mean that
they are released from the requirement of upholding the
fundamental
in
particular as provided by Article 49.

freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty,

(b)

For entry on the register of patent consultants authorised
to practise in Italy, Article 2 of Ministerial Decree 342/95
imposes the further requirement of having a residence or
a professional office in Italy, except in the case of citizens
of States which allow Italian citizens to be entered on the
corresponding registers without fulfilling that require-
ment.

It is clear that a consultant intending to practise alone in
Italy would find it very difficult to establish a professional
practice in that country. He would feel unable to proceed,
for which reason in this case too that there is clearly an
unjustified obstacle to observance of the principle of
freedom to provide services.

Appeal brought on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra
Snc dei Fratelli Rossi, established in Ispra, against the
order made on 17 January 2001 by the Second Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc dei
Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-136/01 P)

(2001/C 150/32)

was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra Snc dei
Fratelli Rossi, represented by Francandrea Venuto, of the Busto
Arsizio Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of
Mr Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaïde.

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— Set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First

Instance contested in these proceedings:

— Find and declare that the abovementioned order was
made in breach of Article 111, Chapter II, of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities;

— In any event reject the objection raised by the
Commission of the European Communities before
the Court of First Instance of the European Com-
munities that the action is time-barred;

— In any event find and declare that the application
originating the proceedings before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-124/99 is admissible;

— Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the

applicant at first instance:

— Find and declare that the EAEC is liable under the
second paragraph of Article 188 of the EAEC Treaty
on the basis of the facts and documents relied on by
the applicant in those proceedings, which are to be
deemed to be reproduced in their entirety in this
notice of appeal;

— Consequently, order the EAEC, represented by the
Commission of the European Communities, to pay
to the persons vested with legal representation of
the appellant, Autosalone Ispra Snc dei Fratelli Rossi,
the principal sum of ITL 1 245 000 000 , adjusted
by way of monetary revaluation, with interest
accruing thereon until due payment, or such other
sum as may be held to be fair;

— The decision given should be enforceable and
include an order that the defendant pay the costs at
both instances;

— By way of preparatory inquiry, grant the preparatory
measures requested by the applicant before the
Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An appeal against the order made on 17 January 2001 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc
dei Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Communities,

The appellant submits that the order made by the Court of
First Instance is vitiated for the following reasons:

— Failure to hear the views of the Advocate General.