Case C-415/01: Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2001-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

22.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 369/9

the view — which is challenged by the Netherlands —
that not only imports of mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with EC/OCT originating status, but also imports of
mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating
status, have an adverse effect on the sugar sector, it has
failed in any way whatever to substantiate this;

— Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: the
Commission has failed to ensure that
the safeguard
measures adopted pursuant to the contested regulation
will cause as little disruption as possible to the functioning
of the association. The Commission has also failed to
determine whether those safeguard measures will have
the intended effect. Finally, the safeguard measures which
have been adopted go further than is necessary: a
safeguard measure providing simply for a minimum
import price for ACP/OCT mixtures would have been
adequate to achieve the desired objective and would have
been less onerous for the OCT and the undertakings
concerned;

— Misuse of powers: Article 109 of the OCT Decision does
not confer on the Commission any discretionary power
to correct or supplement the opportunities for ACP/OCT
originating status intended by the Council in cases where
the use of such an opportunity has consequences which
were envisaged or even intended when the OCT Decision
was adopted;

— Infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-

imate expectations;

— Infringement of Article 253 EC: the safeguard measure in
issue is in no way whatever supported by facts or figures.

(1) OJ C ... of ..., p. ...

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October
2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des
Douanes

(Case C-411/01)

(2001/C 369/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal d’Instan-
ce (District Court), Metz, of 8 October 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur
Principal des Douanes on the following questions:

Upon triangular outward processing, is an operator prohibited,
upon a proper interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of the
Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) (1)
from deducting, on release of compensating products for free
circulation, the amount of the import duties which would be
applicable to the temporary export goods in accordance with
their correct tariff heading where their tariff heading declared
on their exportation was different because it was incorrect?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
19.10.1992, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-415/01)

(2001/C 369/16)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 October 2001 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by G.V. Jordana and J. Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, inasmuch as the Flemish Region and the
Walloon Region have failed to transpose Article 4(1) and
(2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1),
to define special protection areas within their territories
which are capable of being relied upon as against third
parties and to take the measures necessary to ensure that
the classification of a site as a special protection area
automatically and simultaneously entails the application
of a system of protection and conservation which is in
line with Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds, together with Article 4(4)
thereof, as partially amended, in accordance with Article 7
of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), by Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of
that same directive,

C 369/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.12.2001

— Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. zur Hausen, acting as Agent, assisted by
H. van der Woude and V. Landes, avocats, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The mere fact of having designated a number of special
protection areas does not in itself constitute a complete
and proper transposition of Article 4(1) and (2) of the
directive since such designation is only intended to
the general obligations enshrined in the
implement
directive. On the other hand, no legally binding provision
applicable in the territory of one or other region provides
for the classification as special protection areas of the
most appropriate areas in terms of number and surface
area for the conservation of the bird species listed in
Annex I and of the regularly occurring migratory species
not listed in Annex I, as regards their breeding, moulting
and wintering areas and staging posts along their
migration routes.

— The delimitation of the special protection areas by those
regions cannot be relied upon as against third parties in
the absence of their publication and in the absence of
provisions of national law providing expressly that the
publication of the order without accompanying maps is
to have no effect on their binding nature vis-à-vis third
parties.

— So far as the Flemish Region is concerned, the special
protection areas do not have the protection and conser-
vation status provided for by Community law in the field,
since the only measures which are applicable are either
sparse and disjointed or, on the contrary, are of an
extremely general nature having exactly the same value
within as outwith the special protection areas.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-

vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
p. 7).

Action brought on 5 November 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against French Republic

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to transpose completely Articles
14(a) and (b), 15(1) and (2), 16(1) and 19(2), (3) and (4)
of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
on the contained use of genetically modified micro-
organisms (1), and by failing to transpose the provisions
of the directive for certain contained use by the Ministry
of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive and Article 249 of the EC
Treaty; and

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the implementing
The Commission takes the view that
measures communicated by the French authorities amount to
only incomplete transposition of certain provisions of the
directive, namely:

— Article 14(a), in so far as it concerns the use of genetically
modified micro-organisms belonging to Groups I and II
for teaching, research and development, and in so far as
to
it concerns installations other than those subject
authorisation involving uses for industrial or non-com-
mercial purposes;

— Article 14(b), in so far as it concerns installations subject
to declaration and in so far as it concerns making
available to other Member States concerned information
on safety measures and on the correct behaviour to adopt
in the case of an accident;

(Case C-429/01)

(2001/C 369/17)

— Article 15(1), in that the measures adopted by the French
authorities do not specify the list of information to be
provided by the user;

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 November

— Article 15(2), in so far as it concerns the drawing up of a
framework for the measures designed to alert any Member
State liable to be affected by an accident;