Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings (Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against those responsible for infringing the Community rules on conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishing regulations

C 173/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

1. Where an examination of goods has been ordered by the
customs authority for the purposes of verifying a declaration
which has been accepted and it has proved impossible to carry
out the examination because the goods have been removed from
the place of temporary storage without the authorisation of the
relevant customs authority, the customs debt on importation is
incurred under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code.

2.

It is possible for a customs debt on importation to be incurred
under Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where
the customs declaration received by the customs office was
accompanied by technically correct certificates of origin corre-
sponding to Form A and where the zero preferential tariff
applied to the goods covered by the declaration.

of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, since the public management and construction
entities of Val-de-Marne and Paris and the low-rent housing
corporation Logirel did not publish contract notices in the
Official Journal of the European Communities concerning
the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin
Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and
16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et
du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Council Directive
93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular
Article 11(2) thereof;

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 February 2001

in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 February 2001

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of ‘con-
tracting authority’)

in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(2001/C 173/06)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger, F. Million and S. Pailler) supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R.V. Magrill) — application for a declaration that,
in the
for the award of public
context of various procedures,
contracts for the construction of housing organised by public
development and construction entities and by low-rent hous-
ing corporations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular
Article 11(2) thereof — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
munity system for the conservation and management of
fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities
— Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings
(Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and
Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary
prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation
No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against
those responsible for infringing the Community rules on
conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))

(2001/C 173/07)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v French Republic

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/5

(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak) — application for a
declaration that,

— by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
for the

the quotas allocated to it

the utilisation of
1988 and 1990 fishing years,

— by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
rules on the conservation of species through adequate
monitoring of fishing activities and through appropriate
inspection of the fishing fleet, actual landings and catch
records for both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,

— by not temporarily prohibiting, in both the 1988 and
1990 fishing years, fishing by vessels flying the French
flag or registered in French territory at times when
the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the
corresponding quota, and by finally prohibiting fishing at
a time when the corresponding quota had been largely
exceeded,

and

— by failing, for the 1988 and 1990 fishing years, to take
penal or administrative action against any master or other
person responsible for fishing after a prohibition had
been imposed,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the
conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983
L 24, p. 1),
in conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing
certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207,
p. 1), under Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87, and
under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83 in conjunction
with Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann
and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which
it:

1. Declares that:

the quotas allocated to it

— by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
the utilisation of
for the
1988 and 1990 fishing years and by failing to ensure
compliance with the Community rules on the conservation
of species through adequate monitoring of fishing activities
and through appropriate inspection of the fishing fleet,
actual landings and catch records for both the 1988 and
1990 fishing years;

— by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying
the French flag or registered in French territory in cases
where the catches made were deemed to have exhausted the
corresponding quota and, where relevant, by prohibiting
fishing after the corresponding quota had been largely
exceeded, in both the 1988 and 1990 fishing years;

and

— by failing, as regards the 1988 and 1990 fishing years,
to take penal or administrative action against any master
or other person responsible for fishing after imposition of
a fishing ban,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of
25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for
in
the conservation and management of
conjunction with Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
measures for fishing activities, under Article 11(2) of Regu-
lation No 2241/87, and under Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 170/83 in conjunction with Article 1(2) of Regulation
No 2241/87;

fishery resources,

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 February 2001

in Case C-350/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Bremen, Germany): Wolfgang Lange v
Georg Schünemann GmbH (1)

(Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an
employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions
applicable to the contract or employment relationship —
Length of normal daily or weekly work — Rules on overtime
— Rules of evidence)

(2001/C 173/08)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-350/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht