Case C-392/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, comparative advertising, consumer protection

24.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 331/15

period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period
expired on 1 January 2000 without the United Kingdom
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of De Danske
Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattesty-
relsen

(1) OJ L 001, 5.1.1999, p. 1-2.

(Case C-383/01)

(2001/C 331/25)

Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-382/01)

(2001/C 331/24)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant requests that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
European Parliament and Council Directive 98/78/EC of
27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of
insurance undertakings in an insurance group (1), or, in
any event, by failing to inform the Commission of
those measures, the United Kingdom has failed fulfil its
obligations under that Directive,

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 5 June 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1-12.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by
the Østre Landsret
(Eastern Regional Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 5 October 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of De Danske Bilimportører v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen (Duty and Taxation
Authority of the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), on the following
questions:

1.

2.

Can an indirect duty (registration duty) charged by a
Member State, which in the case of new cars amounts to
105 % of DKK 52 800 and 180 % of the remainder of
the taxable value, be a measure having an effect equivalent
to a quantitative restriction on imports and for that
reason prohibited under Article 28 EC (reference is made
in this connection to the Court’s judgment in Case
C-47/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509,
paragraph 13)?

If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’: can that registration
duty be justified on the grounds that are mentioned in
Article 30 EC or follow from the Court’s case-law on
Article 28 EC (reference is made to Case 120/78 Rewe-
Zentral [1979] ECR 649)?

Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-392/01)

(2001/C 331/26)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martı´nez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

C 331/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.11.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of
the Council of 6 October 1997
amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
or,
in any event, by failing to have informed the
Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-
ive provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 3(1) of the Directive,

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

— set aside the order of the President of the Court of
First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R
Euroalliages and Others v Commission;

— dismiss the application for interim measures in Case

T-132/01 R; and

— order the applicants to pay the costs occasioned by this
appeal, as well as by the application for interim relief and
the application to amend the order of 1 August 2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain was
obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the
requirements of the Directive by 23 April 2000 at the latest
and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. However,
the Kingdom of Spain has not complied with those obligations,
since it has failed to take the measures necessary to incorporate
the Directive into the Spanish legal system.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18 .
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.

Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the order made on
1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R
between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Var-
gon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of
the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The order misconstrued Article 3(1) of Council Regula-
tion(EC) No 384/96 (1) in finding that‘ the term “material”
can only be understood as a synonym for “serious”’. There
is nothing in that Regulation to support the conclusion
that a ‘material’ injury within the meaning of Article 3 of
the Regulation is the same as the ‘serious’ damage which
must be established for the purposes of an application
for interim measures.

— The order failed to have regard to the case-law on
exceptional circumstances in finding that the circum-
stances of this case justified departing from settled case-
law.

— The order failed to have regard to the case-law in
characterising the damage possibly suffered by the appli-
cants as ‘irreparable’.

(Case C-404/01 P(R))

(Alternatively)

(2001/C 331/27)

— In balancing the interests at stake, the contested order:

An appeal against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the
President of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages,
Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlan-
tica, and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 (by fax received on
11.10.01) by the Commission of the European Communities
represented by V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, acting as Agents,
and P. Bentley, Barrister, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

adopts inconsistent reasoning in finding that the regis-
tration of imports without requiring importers to deposit
guarantees would not create an irreversible situation,
whereas registration with the deposit of guarantees would
do so; and

misinterprets Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
(which implements the Community’s obligations under
Article 7 of the GATT agreement on anti-dumping) in
concluding that the registration of imports would not
have the same effect as anti-dumping measures.