Case C-247/01: Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

C 227/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

(2)

Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with
Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on
the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not
according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
subsequently amended?

(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank
Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order
of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar
Ministerie against Hans Van Lent

(Case C-232/01)

(2001/C 227/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank Te
Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001
for a
received at
preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against
Hans Van Lent on the following question:

the Court Registry an 18 June 2001,

Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48
of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC
Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration
of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in
a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an employer
and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first-
mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from
his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in
question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during
the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract
including
of employment and also during his free time,
weekends and holiday periods?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18
June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger,
Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the
Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land
of Salzburg

tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District
Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of
Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of
Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
(Case C-238/01) on the following question:

Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?

Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-247/01)

(2001/C 227/26)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4)
of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on
the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by
Directive 97/49/EC (2), which was replaced by Article 6(3)
and (4) of Council Directive (3) 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of
Directive 79/409/EEC,

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

(Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)

(2001/C 227/25)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-

In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook
to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/15

2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the ‘birds
directive’) by 1 January 1995. As of that date the obligations
under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds directive in
respect of all areas classified pursuant to Article 4(1) and (2) of
the birds directive were replaced by the obligations in
Article 6(2) to (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (‘habitats directive’) as laid down in Article 7 of that
directive.

As regards the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the birds
directive with reference to Article 6(3) and (4) of the habitats
directive the Swedish government considered that a number
of amendments to its legislation were required to implement
the directive. The Commission claims that
the necessary
measures were not taken within the period of two months
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.

As regards the consultation obligation under Article 6(3) of
the birds directive the Commission claims that the necessary
measures were not taken within the period of two months
prescribed in the reasoned opinion.

Finally, as regards the deficiencies in the correct implemen-
tation of Article 9 of the birds directive, the legal provisions
which Sweden claims incorporate Article 9, that is to say
Paragraph 23a of the Jaktförordningen (hunting regulation),
which incorporates Article 9(1)(a), Paragraph 9 of the Jaktlagen
(hunting law), which incorporates Article 9(1)(c) and Para-
graph 31 of
the Jaktförordningen, which incorporates
Article 9(1)(b), do not contain the specific information required
under Article 9(2) of the birds directive. The further dero-
gations in the Swedish Jaktförordningen (Paragraphs 14, 15,
20, 21, 27 and 29), in Paragraph 12 of the Artskyddförordn-
ingen (species protection regulation) (SFS 1998:1790) and in
Paragraph 5 of the protective provisions of the Naturvårdverket
(Swedish environment protection board) (NFS 1997:5) do not
contain the information required under Article 9(2) of the
birds directive. Nor does Paragraph 9b of the Jaktförordningen
specify the conditions of risk as prescribed by the third indent
of Article 9(2).

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 223, 13.8.1997, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Action brought on 3 July 2001 by Commission of the
European Communities against French Republic

(Case C-259/01)

(2001/C 227/27)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Roland Tricot acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a) Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules
for the internal market in natural gas (1), the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive and, in particular, Article 29;

(b) Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the third paragraph of Article 249 and the first
paragraph of Article 10 of the EC Treaty France was required
the measures necessary to transpose Directive
to adopt
98/30/EC at the latest by 10 August 2000, the date laid down
in Article 29 thereof.

(1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1.

Removal from the register of Case C-216/00 (1)

(2001/C 227/28)

By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-216/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.

(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.