Case C-465/01: Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, EFTA countries, EU national, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of workers, workers' representation

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/43

should proceed to enter the customs debt in question in
the accounts. By virtue of Article 221(1) of the CCC, the
Member State is required to take immediate steps,
following the entry in the accounts, to recover the debt
by communicating the amount thereof to the debtor. The
Netherlands is incorrect in its view that it may take as
much time as it wishes to carry out a careful assessment,
‘having regard to the quantity and complexity of the
evidence produced in a given case’. The argument
advanced by the Netherlands can only be regarded as
seeking the application of Article 219 of
the CCC.
However, Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC are provisions
the
designed to safeguard the financial
Community, for which customs receipts constitute a
form of own resources, and which thus has an interest in
the rapid determination of those receipts. Consequently,
it is not open to the Member States to invoke, at will,
extensions under Article 219 of the CCC as against the
Commission. On the contrary, the Member States must
always show why the reasons invoked by them render it
necessary to extend the time-limit
for entry in the
accounts.

interests of

— Infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation

No 1552/89.

— Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89:
the infringements complained of in the last two pleas are
necessary consequences of the infringement described in
the first plea. During the period in question, the Nether-
In
lands failed to make the principal sum available.
addition, it has hitherto constantly refused to pay the
corresponding default interest. Since the end of 1996
the Commission has been requesting the Netherlands
authorities to pay to it the sum of NLG 5 323 395,06 by
way of default interest.

(1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
(4) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
(5) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(1) Does Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome permit a Member
State to prohibit cultivation or other processing of
‘industrial hemp’ allowed under EC regulations?

(2)

If that is not the case, can an exception nevertheless be
made under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome with the
result that such a prohibition does not conflict with EC
law?

(3)

If that is not the case, can the Swedish prohibition be
accepted on some other ground?

Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-465/01)

(2002/C 84/75)

An action against
the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 December 2001 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser in the
Commission of the European Communities, with an address
for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Lux-
embourg.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads
Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November
2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten

(Case C-462/01)

(2002/C 84/74)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Halmstads Tingsrätt
(District Court, Halmstad) of 8 November 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 3 December 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten
on the following questions:

(a)

by excluding workers from other EC/EEA Member
to stand for election to
States from the right
chambers of workers, the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 8 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of
movement for workers within the Community and
under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European
Economic Area;

C 84/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

(b) by excluding workers from third countries who are
lawfully employed in a Member State from the right
to stand for election to the works councils and
general assemblies of chambers of workers, the
Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the provisions of the Association Agreements
concluded by the Community with such third
countries, which prohibit discrimination against
such workers;

(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

the right

According to Article 39(2) EC,
to freedom of
movement within an EC Member State enjoyed by nationals of
other Member States entails the abolition of any discrimination
based on nationality between workers of the Member States as
regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of
work and employment. Article 28 of the EEA Agreement
contains analogous provisions. In addition, Article 8(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community expressly confers on workers
from other Member States the ‘right of eligibility for workers’
representative bodies in the undertaking’. That wording
includes within its ambit the right to elect, and to stand for
election to, workers’ representative bodies within a Member
State.

The Commission further argues that the notion of conditions
of work and employment as contained in the Association
Agreements and comparable agreements must be interpreted
as having the same meaning as in Article 39(2) EC and
Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, according to which
it covers the exercise of rights of participation in management,
such as the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in works
council elections and elections to chambers of workers.

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.

ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

to

comply with

— declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary
Council Directive
1999/89/EC (1) of 15 November 1999 amending Direc-
tive 91/494/EEC on animal health conditions governing
intra-Community trade in and imports
from third
countries of fresh poultrymeat, the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
lic

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(Case C-466/01)

(2002/C 84/76)

(1) OJ No L 300, 23.11.1999, p. 17.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Decem-