Case C-265/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of 28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, import, interpretation of the law, mollusc, quantitative restriction, ship's flag

C 245/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The Court of First Instance failed to draw all the logical
consequences from the selection board’s decision to
delete certain questions and to take no account of the
answers given to them.

Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of
28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie
civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie
Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec

(Case C-265/01)

(2001/C 245/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Dinan of 28 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comite Region pêches
maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc
Kermarrec on the following questions:

— Can scallops caught from vessels registered in France (at
Saint-Brieuc and Saint-Malo) in the waters of Jersey (the
Minkies) under licence issued by the Jersey authorities
authorising fishing by diving be regarded as imported
products, in spite of the French legislation which applies
to fish catches the law of the flag of the fishing vessel?

— Is the validity of the Order of 19 March 1980, which
prohibits the unloading of scallops during their close
season, affected by the provisions of
the Treaty of
Maastricht, which prohibit measures having an effect
equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports?

Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-272/01)

(2001/C 245/26)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Teresa Figueira and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.

(a) Declare that,

— by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary so
that the quality of bathing water conformed to the
values limits set down in Article 3 of the directive;

— by failing to take samples at the minimum frequency

laid down in the annex to the directive;

— by failing to identify all the inshore bathing areas in

Portugal,

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Directive 76/160/EEC (1) in particular as provided
for in Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 3, the
annex to the directive and with Article 1(2) and those
provided for in Article 6(1) and (2);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although a derogation was granted under Article 395 of and
Point II-3 of Annex XXXVI to the Act of Accession of Spain
and Portugal to the European Economic Community until
31 December 1992, the level of non-conformity with the
mandatory values set down in the directive was, for the 2000
bathing season, 7.8 % for coastal bathing areas and 31 % for
inland bathing areas, which was even a decrease in conformity
by comparison with the 1999 season.

Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have still not identified
all the inland bathing areas. There is a discrepancy between
the number of inland bathing areas identified (26) and the
number of ‘riverside beaches’, as described by the Portuguese
authorities, eligible for Community funds (91).

Although there has been 100 % sampling in Portugal in both
coastal bathing areas and inshore bathing areas, that percentage
is only in respect of the bathing areas which have been
identified. Thus, by failing to comply with the minimum
frequency of sampling operations because an insufficient
number of inshore bathing areas have been identified, the
Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
under Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning

the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).