Case C-173/01: Action brought on 20 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal nutrition, food additive, food inspection

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/9

Action brought on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-159/01)

(2001/C 212/14)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J. van
Bakel, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul the Commission’s decision (C(2000) 4404 final) of
21 December 2000 on the exemption from mineral levies
under the manure law which the Netherlands intends to
grant;

(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 87(1) EC: the exemption does
confer any advantage but merely removes an unintended
disadvantage suffered by persons engaged in cultivation
in glasshouses or on substrate as a result of the fact that
the Manure Law does not take account of the actual
removal of minerals from the holding via plant products
grown in glasshouses or on substrate. Moreover, what is
involved is not an exemption properly so called but
rather a rectification designed to correct an unfairness
affecting certain agricultural operators by virtue of the
Manure Law; thus, the exemption rules, by their very
nature, do not constitute an advantage conferred by the
State (or financed from State funds). Furthermore, the
levies are not designed to generate income for the State;
instead, they are intended to regulate the use of manure,
and thus the effect on the environment. The exemption
does not affect trade between Member States.

It is not open to the Commission, within the framework
of the procedure under Article 88 EC, to take into
consideration the compatibility of the exemption rules
with the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) (1). This is
because the Commission’s assessment of the compati-
bility or incompatibility of a measure with the common
market must be limited to an evaluation of the economic
aspects. As it is, the Nitrates Directive does not pursue
any economic objective.

used on agricultural land. As regards crops grown in
glasshouses, which do come into direct contact with the
ground, a very considerable proportion of the phosphate
and nitrogen is absorbed through the plants; conse-
quently,
it cannot be said that the ground is really
affected.

— Failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons: the
Commission has wrongfully failed to state any arguments
as to why it considers that the input norms of 460 kg
phosphate per hectare and 800 kg nitrogen per hectare
are too high to warrant the view that the exemption is
justified by the nature or general scheme of the system.

(1) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.

Action brought on 20 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-173/01)

(2001/C 212/15)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal
Adviser.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

additives

— declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit laid
down the laws, regulations and administrative measures
necessary in order to comply with Council Directive
99/20/EC (1) of 22 March 1999 amending Directives
70/524/EEC concerning
in feedingstuffs,
82/471/EEC concerning certain products used in animal
nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the
organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions
and arrangements for approving and registering certain
establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal
feed sector, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Treaty and that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

The Netherlands Government considers that,
in any
event, there can be no question of the exemption rules
being incompatible with the Nitrates Directive. For the
purposes of cultivation on substrate, minerals are not

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

C 212/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

drive unoccupied Category D motor vehicles on ‘journeys
necessitated by extraordinary circumstances’ without
defining that criterion in any detail.

— Paragraphs 20(4) and 40(5) in conjunction with Para-
graph 20(4) of the Führerscheingesetz are contrary to the
directive, inasmuch as they do not require holders of
Category C1 driving licences to undergo periodic medical
examinations.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 80, 25.3.1999, p. 20.

Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
icht Köln by order of 30 March 2001 in the case of
Hüseyin Gözütok

(Case C-178/01)

(2001/C 212/16)

(Case C-187/01)

(2001/C 212/17)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, and Marie
Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service of the European
Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service
of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by enacting Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the
Führerscheingesetz (Law on driving licences), the Repub-
lic of Austria has infringed the fifth indent of Article 3(1)
of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on
driving licences (1) and that, by enacting Paragraphs 20(4)
and 40(5) in conjunction with Paragraph 20(4) of the
Führerscheingesetz, the Republic of Austria has infringed
point 4 of Annex III to that directive;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Paragraph 2(1)3.1.c of the Führerscheingesetz goes fur-
the directive in relation to
ther than Article 3 of
authorisation to drive Category C motor vehicles, inas-
much as it permits an extensive class of persons also to

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 30 March 2001 of the
Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne),
which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling under Article 35(1) EC in conjunction
with Paragraph 1(2) EuGHG in the criminal proceedings
against Hüseyin Gözütok on the following question of
interpretation concerning Article 54 of the Convention of
19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of
14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at the
common borders (the Schengen Implementing Convention):

Is there a bar to prosecution in the Federal Republic of
Germany under Article 54 of the Schengen Implementing
Convention if, under Netherlands law, a prosecution on the
same facts is barred in the Netherlands?

In particular, is that also the case where a decision by the
Public Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue proceedings after the
fulfilment of conditions (Netherlands ‘transactie’), which under
the law of other Contracting States requires judicial approval,
bars prosecution before a Netherlands court?