Case C-16/02: Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, marketing restriction, national implementing measure

2.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 56/11

Pleas in law and main arguments

The national provisions establishing the label ‘Salaisons d’Au-
vergne’ and the regional labels may affect the free movement
of goods between Member States, particularly inasmuch as
those provisions favour the marketing of goods of national
origin, to the disadvantage of imported goods. The application
of those provisions creates and maintains, in itself, a difference
between the treatment afforded to those two categories of
goods. Outside the material scope of Council Regulation
No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and
foodstuffs (1), the concept of ‘indications of source’ approved
by the Court of Justice is capable of justifying an obstacle to
the free movement of goods only if it serves to protect
the significant reputation acquired by a product amongst
consumers or a particular foodstuff originating in a certain
region. In the Commission’s view, the label ‘Salaisons d’Auverg-
ne’ and the regional labels do not constitute ‘indications of
source’ within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, inasmuch
as they are attached not to a product or to a particular
foodstuff but to groups of products the special reputation of
which is, however, neither alleged nor established.

(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
d’E´ tat section du contentieux, by order of 14 December
2002 in the case of Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant against
Ministère de l’E´ conomie, des Finances et de l’Industrie

(Case C-9/02)

(2002/C 56/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the French Conseil d’E´ tat,
section du contentieux (Council of State, ruling in a conten-
tious matter), received at the Court Registry on 14 January
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant against Ministère de l’E´ conomie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie (Ministry for the Economy, Finance
and Industry) on the following question:

Does the principle of freedom of establishment laid down in
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
EC) preclude the introduction by a Member State, for the
purpose of preventing the risk of tax avoidance, of arrange-

ments for taxing capital gains in the case of transfer of tax
residence, such as result from Article 167 a of the General Tax
Code, as inserted by Article 24 of the 1999 Finance Law of
30 December 1998, in the version in force at the date of the
challenged decree.

Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-16/02)

(2002/C 56/22)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Commission Directive 1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999
adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I
to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximations
of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of
the Member States relating to restrictions on the market-
ing and use of certain dangerous substances and prep-
arations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (1), or at any rate by
failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1)
of that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The obligation imposed on Member States by the third
paragraph of Article 249 EC is such as to require them to
comply with the time-limits laid down in directives. The time-
limit in the present case expired on 29 February 2000 but
France has not adopted the requisite measures.

(1) OJ L 142 of 5 June 1999, p. 22.