Case C-459/01: Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, disclosure of information, personal data, protection of privacy, telecommunications

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/41

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in
Case T-336/999, served on 1 October 2001;

annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to
Community trade mark application number 703 231;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
provides that a directive is binding, as to the result to be
achieved, on the Member State to which it is addressed, entails
an obligation on the Member States to adhere to the time-
limits for implementation laid down in directives. That time-
limit expired on 1 July 2000 before the Italian Republic had
taken the necessary measures to comply with the directive
which is the subject of the Commission’s claims.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The same as in Case C-456/01P.

(1) Not yet published in the court reports.

Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian
Republic

(Case C-458/01)

(2002/C 84/71)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Arnaud Bordes, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/90/EC
of 15 November 1999 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
on animal health conditions governing intra-Community
trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and
hatching eggs the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the EC Treaty;

Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-459/01)

(2002/C 84/72)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2001
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Christopher Docksey and Karen Banks, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant requests that the Court should:

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC of
24 October 1995 concerning the protection of individ-
uals with regard to the processing of personal data and
on the free movement of such data (1) and European
Parliament and Council Directive 97/66/EC of 15 Decem-
ber 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and
the protection of privacy in the telecommunications
sector (2), or,
in any event, by failing to inform the
Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the said Directives, and

2.

order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by

C 84/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
has expired without Ireland having enacted the provisions
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.
(2) OJ L 024, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-460/01)

(2002/C 84/73)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H.M.H. Speyart and G. Wilms,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by having, between 1 January 1991 and

31 December 1995:

— failed, where the declarant in an external Com-
munity transit procedure has not, within three
months from notification by the customs office
of departure that the consignment has not been
the customs office of destination,
presented at
furnished proof of
the regularity of the transit
operation concerned — at the latest on the third day
following the expiry of that time-limit, to take steps
to enter in the accounts and recover the customs
debt and other charges involved, or by having done
so later than provided for by Regulation (EEC,
Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June
1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,
dates and time limits (OJ, English Special Edition
1971 (II), p. 354);

— failed promptly to make available to the Com-
mission the own resources relating thereto; and

— refused to pay the default interest connected there-

with,

the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the second sentence of the second
subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for
the implementation of the Community transit procedure

and for certain simplifications of that procedure (1), the
third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
the implementation of the Community transit procedure
and for certain simplifications of that procedure (2) and
the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
munity Customs Code (3) and under Articles 2 and 9 to
11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89
of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC,
the Communities’ own
Euratom on the system of
resources (4);

(2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of

Code,

Customs

hereinafter

the second sentence of

the second
subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1062/87,
the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Regulation
No 1214/92 and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
Regulation No 2454/93 (the regulation implementing the
‘the
Community
implementing regulation’): Article 96 of Regulation
No 2913/92 (5) (the Community Customs Code, herein-
after ‘the CCC’) and Articles 356 and 379 of
the
implementing regulation lay down mandatory time-limits
for the acts to be performed by the declarant and the
offices of departures and destination in the context of an
external Community transit procedure,
in particular
where a consignment covered by that transit procedure
is not presented in good time to the office of destination.
The Netherlands and the Commission are in disagreement
concerning the correct application of the period of three
months which starts to run on the day of notification
of non-discharge (Article 379(2) of the implementing
regulation and analogous previous provisions). That time-
limit is primarily binding on the declarant, since he is
required within that period to furnish proof of the
regularity of the transit operation concerned. However,
that time-limit is also binding on the Member State in
which the customs office of departure is located, inas-
much as it follows from the penultimate sentence of
Article 317(2) of the implementing regulation that where,
following the expiry of that time-limit, proof has not
been furnished by the declarant,
the Member State
concerned is required to take prompt steps to recover the
customs debt in question. On the first day of the fourth
month after notification of non-discharge, the office of
departure has available to it all the particulars necessary
in order to calculate the customs debt
in question
(Article 217(1) and the opening wording and subpara-
graph (a) of 218(3) of the CCC) and to identify the debtor
concerned — in this case, the declarant (opening wording
and subparagraph (b) of 218(3) of the CCC). Under
Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC, the debt must then be
entered in the accounts within two days or, in certain
circumstances, within 14 days. Consequently, subject to
to
the
possible
time-limit pursuant
Article 219 of
the Member State has no
discretion enabling it to decide at what point in time it

extension of

the CCC,