Case C-328/02: Action brought on 18 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2002-10-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid system, aid to agriculture, animal production, area of holding, management information system, national implementing measure

26.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261/9

2.

order Ireland to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that:

— Ireland has infringed Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92
by failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
proper utilisation of the quota allocated to it. The rules
should have been such as to enable Ireland to ensure that
overfishing did not take place and that quotas were
always respected;

— Ireland did not ensure compliance with Community rules
on control, contrary to Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93;

— Declare that, by restricting itself to transposing part of
Article 1 of and Annexes IV and V of Council Directive
98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 on the contained use of
genetically modified micro-organisms (1) or, in any event,
by failing to communicate other implementing measures
to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 2 of that
directive;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Ireland did not respect its obligation under Article 21 of
Regulation 2847/93 to prohibit
fishery provisionally
when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have been
exhausted;

Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition.

— by failing to institute criminal or administrative proceed-
ings against the skipper or any other party responsible
for preventing overfishing Ireland has not complied in
full with the obligations imposed by Article 31 of
Regulation 2847/93.

The Commission finds that, despite the prescribed time-limit
having expired, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has carried
out only a partial transposition of the directive referred to in
the Commission’s pleadings, restricted to part of Article 1
thereof and Annexes IV and V thereto.

( 1) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.

(1) OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13.

Action brought on 16 September 2002 by Commission
of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

Action brought on 18 September 2002 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-325/02)

(2002/C 261/14)

(Case C-328/02)

(2002/C 261/15)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
the
ties on 16 September 2002 by the Commission of
European Communities,
represented by U. Wölker and
F. Simonetti, acting as Agents.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 Sep-
tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser in
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 261/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

26.10.2002

The Commission claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures
prescribed by Council Regulation No 3508/92 (1) estab-
lishing an integrated administration and control system
for certain Community aid schemes, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

— Declare that, by excluding absolutely the application of
the rate of levy in discharge to income arising from the
investments and contracts referred to in Articles 125-0 A
and 125 A of the Code général des impôts (General Tax
Code), where the debtor is not resident or established in
France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 49 and 56 EC;

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the regulation at issue, the Member States were obliged
to establish by 1 January 1997 an integrated system including
a computerised data base, an alphanumeric identification
system for agricultural parcels, an alphanumeric system for
the identification and registration of animals, standardised
processing of aid applications and an integrated control system
(Article 2).

The Greek authorities have not yet established an integrated
system of that kind, and the alternative system which they
apply for checking areas and requests for payment has
repeatedly been considered inadequate and has been the cause
of corrections in the clearing of accounts.

( 1) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 1.

The income referred to in Article 125 A of the Code general
des impôts (CGI) (income from interest arising from arrears
and from all kinds of State bonds, stocks, participation share
certificates, stocks and other certificates of
indebtedness,
deposits, guarantees and current accounts) and that referred to
in Article 125-0 A of the CGI (income from certificates or
bond investments and other similar investments), is subject to
income tax. None the less, the levy in discharge (which is often
attractive because its rate is generally lower than the marginal
rate of tax resulting from the application of the progressive
scale of tax on income and of splitting income) can be applied
to it only if the debtor is resident or established in France.

The Commission takes the view that the above constitutes a
restriction on the freedom to provide services and on the free
movement of capitals contrary to Articles 49 and 56 of the EC
Treaty, in that the more generally favourable levy in discharge
is not applied to income collected by French residents from a
debtor which is not resident or established in France, even if
the person in question is able to provide evidence that it fulfils
all the conditions in which the levy in discharge is applied to
income obtained from a debtor resident or established in
France.

Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the French
Republic

(Case C-334/02)

(2002/C 261/16)

Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-335/02)

(2002/C 261/17)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-