Case C-407/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), cocoa, protective clause, sugar

C 369/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.12.2001

Action brought on 10 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-396/01)

(2001/C 369/13)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil

its obligations
under Directive 91/676/EEC (1) concerning the protection
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources by failing, within the time-limits
provided for in the Directive, to completely identify
waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in accordance with the
criteria set out in Annex I and to notify these to the
Commission, to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to
Article 3(2) and/or 3(4), to establish action programmes
in accordance with Article 5, and to correctly and
completely carry out monitoring and review of waters in
accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (c);

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On the basis of the information available to it, the Commission
considers that Ireland has failed to identify waters in accord-
ance with the criteria of Annex I of the directive. In so far as
Ireland may argue that it has identified waters in accordance
with Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Commission would
contend that Ireland has failed to notify the Commission of
these waters within the time-frame foreseen by Article 12 of
the directive.

For the purposes of designating and revising the designation
of vulnerable zones, Article 6 of the directive requires Member
States to carry out monitoring of nitrate concentrations and to
review the eutrophic state of fresh surface waters, estuarial,
coastal and marine waters, according to specified timetables.
The Commission contends that Ireland has failed in practice
to monitor and review correctly in accordance with Article 6.

(1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).

Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-407/01)

(2001/C 369/14)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J.S. van
den Oosterkamp, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of
18 July 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001
as regards safeguard measures with regard to imports
from the overseas countries and territories of mixtures of
sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating status for the
period 1 July to 1 December 2001;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Ireland has not established and applied action programmes
throughout its territory, as it is entitled to do under Article 3(5)
of the directive. Therefore, the exemption, given in Article 3(5),
from the obligation to identify specific vulnerable zones does
not arise. However, Ireland has not designated any vulnerable
zones in accordance with Article 3(2) and/or 3(4).
is
currently the only Member State with a complete absence of
such designations. A corollary of Ireland’s failure to designate
any vulnerable zones is its failure to establish any action
programmes in accordance with Article 5 of the directive.

It

— Connection with Regulation No 1325/2001, the annul-
ment of which is the subject-matter of Case C-325/01 (1).
A ruling that Regulation No 1325/2001 is void will
remove any basis for Regulation No 1476/2001;

— Infringement of Article 109(1) of Council Decision
91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries
and territories with the European Economic Community
(‘the OCT Decision’): in so far as the Commission takes

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,