Case C-45/02: Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
Date: 2002-04-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural vehicle, electromagnetic interference, engine, technological change, tractor

C 97/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2002

(3) Are the same provisions of Regulation 896/2001 incom-
patible with Council Regulation EEC No 404/93 (2) of
13 February 1993 (with subsequent amendments and
additions), in particular with Article 20 thereof?

(4)

If the answer given to the preceding questions is in the
negative, the Court is asked to state whether, by preclu-
ding persons related to traditional operators from being
granted a tariff quota even as ‘non-traditional operators’,
Article 6 of the aforementioned Commission regulation,
in particular subparagraph (c) thereof, conflicts with the
to pursue a professional activity,
fundamental right
viewed in relation to the freedom to conduct a business.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph
of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States must adopt the
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to them
into their domestic law before the expiry of
the period
prescribed for doing so. That period expired on 29 September
2000 without Portugal having brought into force the necessary
provisions.

(1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

(Case C-44/02)

(2002/C 97/08)

(Case C-45/02)

(2002/C 97/09)

An action against
the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 February 2002 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Anto´ nio Caeiros, acting as
Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against
the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by
engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors
and amending Council Directive 74/150/EEC(1),
the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 9 of
aforementioned Directive
2000/25/EC; and

the

the Portuguese Republic was brought
An action against
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 February 2002 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Anto´ nio Caeiros, acting as
Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
mission Directive 2000/2/EC of 14 January 2000 adapt-
ing to technical progress Council Directive 75/322/EEC
relating to the suppression of radio interference produced
by spark-ignition engines fitted to wheeled agricultural
or forestry tractors and Council Directive 74/150/EEC
relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or
forestry tractors (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed
to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4 of Directive
2000/2/EC;

— In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the
Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of the
aforementioned Directive 2000/25/EC;

— In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
the Commission immediately of such provisions, the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 4 of Directive 2000/2/EC;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

20.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 97/5

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition
expired on 21 December 2000.

(1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.
(2) See page 4 of this OJ.

Action brought on 20 February 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United King-
dom

(Case C-52/02)

(2002/C 97/11)

Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-51/02)

(2002/C 97/10)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 February 2002 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Marie Wolfcarius and Michael Shotter, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 1999/52/EC(1) of 26 May 1999
adapting
to technical progress Council Directive
96/96/EC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor
vehicles and their trailers, or in any event by failing to
inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

2)

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 October 2000 without Ireland having enacted
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999, p. 26.
(2) of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 1).

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michael Shotter, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/71/EC (1) of 7 November 2000 to adapt
the measuring methods as laid down in Annexes I, II,
III and IV to Directive 98/70/EC (2) of the European
Parliament and of the Council to technical progress as
foreseen in Article 10 of that Directive or, in any event,
by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
its obligations under Article 2(1)
has failed to fulfil
and 2(2) of this Directive;

2)

order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 287, 14.11.2000, p. 46.
(2) of 13 October 1998 (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998, p. 58).