Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 2002 in Case C-80/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Italian Leather SpA v WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. (Brussels Convention — Article 27(3) — Irreconcilability — Enforcement procedures in the State where enforcement is sought)
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law

C 180/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.2002

for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane,
(C-430/99),
Rotterdam district and Sea-Land Service Inc.
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (C-431/99), on the interpretation of
Articles 92, 59 and 56 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 87 EC, 49 EC and 46 EC) and Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the
principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
between Member States and between Member States and third
countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it has ruled:

As regards situations falling within the scope of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member
States and between Member States and third countries,
that
regulation, in conjunction with Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC), does not preclude
a vessel traffic services system, such as the ‘verkeersbegeleidingssysteem’
system at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the payment
of a tariff by sea-going vessels longer than 41 metres which
participate in that system on a mandatory basis, while other vessels,
such as inland waterway vessels, are exempt from that tariff, in so far
as there is in fact a correlation between the amount of that tariff and
the cost of the service from which those sea-going vessels benefit.

Abad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
the measures necessary to transpose correctly the obligation
arising from Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment
(OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), in conjunction with Annex II thereto,
and by maintaining in force legislation which, in breach of
the
those provisions, does not enable an assessment of
environmental effects to be carried out in the whole of the
national territory in respect of certain classes of project listed
in Annex II to that directive and, in a considerable part of that
territory, in respect of many other classes of project listed in
the same annex, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
to comply with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment,
in
conjunction with Annex II thereto, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.

(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 13 June 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 6 June 2002

in Case C-474/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)

in Case C-80/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Italian Leather SpA v WECO
Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment — Incomplete
transposition)

(Brussels Convention — Article 27(3) — Irreconcilability —
Enforcement procedures in the State where enforcement is
sought)

(2002/C 180/03)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(2002/C 180/04)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-474/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı´az

In Case C-80/00: Reference to the Court, under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of

27.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 180/3

the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Italian
Leather SpA and WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co., on the
interpretation of Title III, headed ‘Recognition and enforce-
ment’, of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September
1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended
text — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and
by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989
L 285, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2002, in
which it has ruled:

1. On a proper construction of Article 27(3) of the Convention of
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of
Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by
the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of
the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, a foreign
decision on interim measures ordering an obligor not to carry
out certain acts is irreconcilable with a decision on interim
measures refusing to grant such an order in a dispute between
the same parties in the State where recognition is sought.

2. Where a court of the State in which recognition is sought finds
that a judgment of a court of another Contracting State is
irreconcilable with a judgment given by a court of the former
State in a dispute between the same parties, it is required to
refuse to recognise the foreign judgment.

(1) OJ C 147 of 27.5.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 13 June 2002

in Case C-117/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Ireland (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of
wild birds — Special protection areas)

(2002/C 180/05)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-117/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan, assisted
by C. Mac Eochaidh, BL): Application for a declaration that, by
failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with
Article 3 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on
the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), in respect
of the Red Grouse, and with the first sentence of Article 4(4)
of that directive and Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), in respect
of the Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex special protection area,
Ireland has failed to comply with those directives and has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to
safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for the Red
Grouse and by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the
Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex special protection area, the
deterioration of the habitats of the species for which the special
protection area was designated, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 3 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC
of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and
Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.