Case C-182/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat by judgment of that Court of 25 January 2002 in the case of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association pour la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement des opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs and Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier d'eau against République française
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, bird, hunting, hunting regulations, interpretation of the law

C 169/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
by judgment of that Court of 25 January 2002 in the case
of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association
pour la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement
des opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations
départementales de chasseurs and Association nationale
des chasseurs de gibier d’eau against République française

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Directive 2002/15/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council on the organisation of the
working time of persons performing mobile road trans-
port activities; and

(Case C-182/02)

(2002/C 169/42)

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat
(Council of State) of 25 January 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 15 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux, the Association pour
la protection des animaux sauvages, Rassemblement des
opposants à la chasse, Union nationale des fédérations départe-
mentales de chasseurs and Association nationale des chasseurs
de gibier d’eau against République française on the following
questions:

— Does Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409 of
2 April 1979 (1) permit a Member State to derogate from
the opening and closing dates for hunting set in the light
of the objectives specified in Article 7(4) thereof?

— If so, what are the criteria which make it possible to

establish the limits of that derogation?

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-

vation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1).

Action brought on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain
against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-184/02)

(2002/C 169/43)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 16 May 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain represented by
Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogada del Estado, with an address
for
the Spanish Embassy,
4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.

in Luxembourg at

service

Pleas in law and main arguments

Breach of the right to professional and commercial freedom:

— Bringing self-employed carriers within the scope of the
directive at issue infringes the fundamental right
to
exercise freely a professional or commercial occupation,
one of the general principles of law respect for which is
safeguarded by the Court of Justice.

— Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: bringing
self-employed carriers within the scope of the directive
amounts to unjustified discrimination against those car-
riers as compared with carriers who are employed by
other persons, since situations which are quite different
are being treated in the same way without there being
any objective justification for doing so; in addition, it
involves a failure to observe the terms of reference of
Article 74 EC, which requires the Council, when it takes
measures in respect of transport rates and conditions, to
take account of the economic circumstances of carriers.

Furthermore, bringing self-employed drivers within the
scope of
the directive operates as a disincentive to
the creation of transport undertakings and limits their
capacity to expand by making the legal
framework
unclear. Small operators will not know whether their
actions are within the ambit of the law relating to self-
employed persons or are within a labour relationship like
that of any employee, or, perhaps worse, will not know
whether they are subject to the limitations but not the
rights imposed or granted to the latter. In short, bringing
self-employed carriers within the scope of the directive
discriminates against them as compared with carriers
who operate through persons working for others, making
it impossible for them to carry on business in a normal
way, reducing their competitiveness and leading to their
gradual exclusion from the market.