Case C-293/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of Jersey, Samedi Division, by order of that court dated 5 August 2002, in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and 2) Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners: 1) Top Produce Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Channel Islands, United Kingdom, export policy, export tax, interpretation of the law, potato, quantitative restriction

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/5

4. Are the provisions of Article 28 and 30 EC on the free
movement of goods, applicable to Norway on the basis
of Articles 8 to 16 of the European Economic Area
Agreement (EEA Agreement), to be interpreted, with
reference to the provisions contained in Council Decision
2000/766/EC and Commission Decision 2001/9 cited in
question (1) above, as meaning that a Member State may
not impose a requirement of zero error in a situation
such as that described in questions (1) and (2) above?

( 1) OJ L 306 of 7.12.2000, p. 32.
( 2) OJ L 2 of 5.1.2001, p. 32.
( 3) OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8.

Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-288/02)

(2002/C 247/09)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 August
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and M. Patakia, Legal Advisers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. The applicant
claims that the Court should declare that by:

— expressly conferring the right to carry passengers between
Greek mainland ports solely upon Greek passenger ships
and the right to carry out tours with passenger ships of a
gross tonnage exceeding 650 gt by way of island cabotage
solely upon Greek passenger ships,

— requiring in the case of Community ships entered in a
second or international register a certificate from the
competent authority of the flag State declaring that that
ship is allowed to provide cabotage services,

— considering that the Peloponnese constitues an island,

and

— applying to Community tankers, freighters, passenger
ships and tourist ships, and to cruise ships which carry
out sea tours by way of island cabotage its rules as host
State relating to manning conditions, and requiring the
shipowners to submit an application to the competent
authorities for measurement of the gross tonnage of the
ship, in order for the Greek authorities to calculate the
basic composition of the crew,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
of 7 December 1992 (1) applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport within Member States
(maritime cabotage).

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, current Greek legislation is not
consistent with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92. The fact that
the regulation is of direct application and its provisions prevail
over national law does not release Member States from the
obligation to repeal national provisions incompatible with
Community law.

As regards the classification of the ports of the Peloponnese as
island ports, the Commission points out that the Peloponnese
is separated from the rest of Greece by a man-made canal and
is linked by road and rail with the rest of the country. It
therefore accords with common sense, and also with the case-
law of the Court of Justice (see Joined Cases C-15/98 and
C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR
I-8855, paragraph 55), for the Peloponnese to be considered
part of mainland Greece.

Finally, as regards island cabotage, the Commission submits
that, while host State rules apply for regulating manning-
related issues, those rules must not, however, in any event be
contrary to Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
Jersey, Samedi Division, by order of that court dated
5 August 2002, in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and
2) Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners:
1) Top Produce Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd

(Case C-293/02)

(2002/C 247/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of
Jersey, Samedi Division, dated 5 August 2002, which was
received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and 2) Jersey
Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners: 1) Top Produce
Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd, on the following questions:

1.

Is a statutory Scheme such as that which regulates the
export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to
be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to
quantitative restrictions on exports, contrary to Article 29
EC, by reason of the fact that potatoes sent directly from
Jersey to the United Kingdom may travel via another
Member State but without leaving the carrying vessel?

C 247/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.10.2002

2.

Is a statutory Scheme such as that regulating the export
of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to be
considered incompatible with Articles 23, 25 and 28-29
EC in so far as it may affect trade between that island and
the United Kingdom (together with Guernsey and the Isle
of Man) or may entail the imposition of charges arising
in connection with such trade?

Furthermore, the Italian Government argues that, even if the
regulation were to be considered ‘substantive’, the fact that the
Italian Government is not responsible for the withdrawal of
the amount of alcohol as a result of a judicial decision should
lead to the decision itself being considered a ‘case of force
majeure’ which justifies replacing the product which was
withdrawn. In that case, precisely because the body responsible
for payment is not at fault, there has been no failure to fulfil
the obligation to assign the alcohol to the abovementioned
stock nor, a fortiori, has their been any damage to the
Community, whose sole interest is that Community stocks be
maintained.

Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

Olive oil production aid

(Case C-297/02)

(2002/C 247/11)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato.

The flat-rate financial correction of 2 % of the expenditure
declared by Italy in respect of October 1997 to October 1998
amounting in all to EUR 22 678 386,83 was applied as a
result of the finding that the Italian authorities’ checks and
inspections were inadequate. The finding was based on the
following three factors:

— belated notification of data relating to mill production by
the paying agency AIMA (Azienda di Stato per gli
interventi nel mercato agricolo) to the inspection body
AGECONTROL;

— lack of coordination of the various inspections and checks
between the paying agency and the inspection body;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— inadequate analysis and assessment of

the available

information on risk factors.

— annul decision C(2002) 2263 (1) def. of 28 July 2002 in
so far as it provides with regard to Italy: — B.4.1. -ITALY
— Investigation No 1999 (666) on alcohol correction to
budget post 1622 in respect of 1998 financial year of
EUR — 4 085 724,85; — B.8.1. Olive oil production aid
— Italy financial correction of EUR — 22 678 386,33
for the financial years 1997, 1998 and 1999

By way of answer to the Commission’s criticisms, the Italian
Government would submit the following:

(a) Coordination between AIMA and AGECONTROL

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the proper application of
Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 (2) requires that wherever there
is stock missing in Community stocks the budget post must
automatically be adjusted without inquiring into the reasons
for the shortfall, the Member State being held objectively liable.
According to the Italian Government, such an interpretation
must be rejected because it does not conform with legal
reasoning, or with the letter and spirit of the provision.

The Agency has always sought to ask AIMA timeously
and with the necessary precision for all
the appropriate
computerised data in order to allow it to carry out the checks
required by the work schedules for each financial year, issuing
reminders for such information when it was late in providing
it. Moreover, AIMA has for some years entered formal
memoranda of understanding with the Agency with the aim
of ensuring a regular and orderly exchange of computerised
information with AGECONTROL. The claim that there was no
coordination is therefore unfounded.