Case C-6/02: Action brought on 10 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, designation of origin, foodstuff, free movement of goods

C 56/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 December 2001
in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG
against Hauptzollamt Bochum

(Case C-1/02)

(2002/C 56/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
dorf (Finance Court Düsseldorf) of 19 December 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann
GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Bochum on the
following question:

Does the penalty regulation in the second paragraph of Article
3(2)of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 (OJ EC L 57, p. 12) as amended pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (OJ EC L 142,
p. 22) contravene the proportionality rule in cases where the
time-limit is exceeded only marginally and moreover without
fault?

(b) Do Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC — which
state that a qualification as a civil engineer is to be treated
as equivalent to that of architect for the purposes of
entitlement to provide services in the professional field of
architecture — require a Member State not to exclude
from entitlement to provide the services in question
persons who have successfully completed in that Member
State a course of studies such as those completed by
those holding civil engineering qualifications in Italy?

(c) On the assumption that there is substantive similarity
between the course of studies and professional training
pursued by architects and by civil engineers, does the
principle of equality, as a general principle of Community
law, require in any event that persons holding qualifi-
cations in civil engineering be also allowed to pursue
activities reserved for architects?

(1) OJ L 223 of 10.6.1985, p. 15.

Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of
24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and
the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against
Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di
Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

(Case C-6/02)

(2002/C 56/20)

(Case C-3/02)

(2002/C 56/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per il Veneto (Regional Administrative Court,
Venice) of 24 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on
8 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona
e Provincia (Order of Engineers of the City and Province of
Verona) against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e
Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali (Authority responsible for the environmental and
architectural heritage of Venice — Ministry of Cultural Assets
and Activities) on the following questions

(a) Must Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1)
be interpreted as meaning that, precisely because it lays
down rules of minimum harmonisation, its provisions
must be applied to purely internal situations?

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 January
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. van Lier and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

‘Label régional Franche-Comté’,
‘Label régional Midi-Pyrénées’,

— declare that, by maintaining the national legal protection
afforded to the designations ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’, ‘Label
‘Label
régional Savoie’,
régional Corse’,
‘Label
régional Normandie’, ‘Label régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais’,
‘Label régional Ardennes de France’,
‘Label régional
Limousin’,
‘Label régional Languedoc-Roussillon’, and
‘Label régional Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

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.