Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2001 in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the free movement of goods)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, chamber of commerce and industry, energy law, interpretation of the law, renewable energy

C 173/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with European Parliament and Council Directive
97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts
respectively, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive;

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the
laid down in Article 5(4) and (6), and
obligations
Article 10(1), in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1,
point 3, and Annex V 4(e), to Council Directive 91/676/EEC
of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,
its
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

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

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 8 March 2001

in Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 91/676/EEC)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 March 2001

in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v
Schleswag AG (1)

(Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National
legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to pur-
chase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the
resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream
network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the
free movement of goods)

(2001/C 173/30)

(2001/C 173/31)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing
to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Article 5(4) and (6) and Article 10(1),
in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1, point 3, and
Annex V 4(e) to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375,
p. 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:

In Case C-379/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Kiel,
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between PreussenElektra AG and Schleswag
AG in the presence of Windpark Reussenköge III GmbH and
Land Schleswig-Holstein — on the interpretation of Article 30
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC),
Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
EC) and Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC),
— the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n
and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 13 March 2001, in which it has ruled:

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/19

1.

2.

Statutory provisions of a Member State which, first, require
private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity
produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources
at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that
type of electricity, and, second, distribute the financial burden
resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply
undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators
do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1)
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).

In the current state of Community law concerning the electricity
market, such provisions are not incompatible with Article 30
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Correctionnel d’Arlon, Belgium): André
Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of
workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC
— Guaranteed minimum wage)

(2001/C 173/32)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-165/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
from the Tribunal
Correctionnel d’Arlon (Criminal Court, Arlon), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against André Mazzoleni, and Inter Surveillance
Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable, third parties: E´ ric
Guillaume and Others — on the interpretation of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the
framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)

and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevo´ n,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
ruled:

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another
Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State
to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national
rules of that State. The application of such rules might, however,
prove to be disproportionate where the workers involved are employees
of an undertaking established in a frontier region who are required to
carry out, on a part-time basis and for brief periods, a part of their
work in the territory of one, or even several, Member States other
than that in which the undertaking is established. It is consequently
for the competent authorities of the host Member State to establish
whether, and if so to what extent, application of national rules
imposing a minimum wage on such an undertaking is necessary and
proportionate in order to ensure the protection of
the workers
concerned.

(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
Tax on motor vehicles)

(2001/C 173/33)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic