Case C-143/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, impact study, protected area

C 144/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

whether it may be made by an official in such other third
country?

— fails to provide that

the conservation measures
referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 apply
to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,

(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective
measures against the introduction into the Community of organ-
isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
within the Community OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and
7 of Directive 92/43/EEC;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-143/02)

(2002/C 144/41)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by adopting legislating implementing Direc-

tive 92/43/EEC (1) which:

— fails to include within the scope of the laws on the
assessment of effects on the environment projects
other than those listed in the Italian legislation
implementing directives on environmental impact
that are nevertheless likely to have a significant
effect on sites of Community importance,

— fails to impose upon the competent Italian auth-
orities any obligation to take appropriate steps in
respect of special protection areas to avoid the
deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats
of species or disturbance of the species for which
the areas were designated, in so far as such disturb-
ance could be significant in relation to the objectives
of the directive,

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 6(3) of the directive provides that any plan or project
which, either individually or in combination with other plans
or projects, has a significant effect on a site of Community
importance falls within the directive’s scope. The word ‘any’
used by the Community legislator leaves no doubt that it refers
to all projects, even if not covered by the directives on the
assessment of environmental impact and even if not directly
connected with or necessary to the management of the site.

However, Article 5(3) of Presidential Decree 357/97 limits the
decree’s scope to a restricted list of projects expressly men-
tioned therein so that a whole series of projects of various
kinds are excluded even though they are likely to have a
significant effect on sites of Community importance.

Under Article 6 of the Italian decree, which transposes Article 7
of the directive, only the obligations arising under Article 4(2)
and (3) and Article 5 and not those arising under Article 4(1)
of the decree — which transposes Article 6(2) of the directive
— apply to special protection areas.

It follows that the Italian legislation at issue imposes no
obligation on the competent Italian authorities to take steps,
in relation to special protection areas, to avoid the deterioration
of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the
disturbance of the species for which the areas have been
designated.

Lastly, Decree 357/97 wholly fails to transpose the provisions
of Article 5(4) of the directive.

The implication of this is that, should the Commission, on
finding an omission from the national list of a Member State,
initiate a bilateral consultation procedure with that Member
State and, failing to resolve the dispute within a period of six
months, forward to the Council a proposal relating to the
selection of the site in question as a site of Community

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/25

importance, there would be no obligation in Italy to apply the
conservation measures laid down in Article 6(2) of the directive
to that site during the consultation period and pending a
Council decision.

3. Does the answer to Question 2 turn on whether the
difference in the rules in the Member State of manufacture
and the Member State of importation results from the
fact that different use has been made of the possibility to
lay down rules under Article 12(2)(b) of Directive No 70/
524/EEC?

(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(1) OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit
Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bun-
desinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

(Case C-145/02)

(2002/C 144/42)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 31 January 2002,
for a
received at the Court Registry on 18 April 2002,
preliminary ruling in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter
des Bundesinteresses (Representative of the Federal Interest) at
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on the following questions:

1. Are national provisions of the law on feedingstuffs, which
prohibit imports of a feedingstuff manufactured lawfully
in another Member State on the ground that the level of
vitamin D 3 does not comply with the law of the State of
importation,
to be assessed directly in the light of
Articles 28 and 30 EC?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K.
Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State
for Social Security

(Case C-147/02)

(2002/C 144/43)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 27 March 2002,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster
against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social
Security, on the following questions:

In a situation where:

a)

b)

the earnings-related element of a woman’s Statutory
Maternity Pay (‘SMP’) is calculated by reference to her
normal weekly earnings for a eight week period ending
on 15th week before the expected week of confinement
(‘the relevant period’), and

the employer grants a pay rise, which is not back-dated
to the relevant period, at any time after the end of
the relevant period used for calculating that woman’s
earnings-related element of SMP and before the end of
her maternity leave:

Question 1

2.

Is Article 19 of Directive 70/524/EEC (1) concerning
additives to be interpreted as permitting the prohibition
on imports of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured
lawfully in another Member State on the ground that it
exceeds the level of vitamin D 3 permitted in the Member
State of importation?

Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty and the judgment in Gillespie
[1996] ECR I-475 to be interpreted as meaning that the
woman is entitled to have that pay rise taken into consideration
in calculating or re-calculating the earnings-related element of
her SMP?