Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of workers' eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transposition)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, medical examination, occupational health, video display unit work

C 323/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Geor-
giou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos
Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios
Dimitrakopoulos and NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou,
Elliniko Dimosio, on the interpretation of Article 1 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 (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1),
the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 1 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 precludes the
application in a Member State of different harbour dues for
domestic or intra-Community traffic and traffic between a
Member State and a third country if that difference is not
objectively justified.

2.

The imposition on passengers of vessels that call at or whose
final destination is a port in a third country of different harbour
dues from those imposed on passengers of vessels whose
destination is domestic or in another Member State, without
there being any correlation between that difference and the cost
of the harbour services enjoyed by those categories of passengers,
amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services
contrary to Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.

3. Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86 does not permit the
imposition, for journeys to ports in third countries, of harbour
dues that vary according to criteria relating to the distance of
those ports or their geographical location if the difference in the
dues is not objectively justified by differences in the way
passengers are treated on account of their destination or the
place from which they have come.

( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of
workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances
appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transpo-
sition)

(2002/C 323/22)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-455/00, Commission of the European Communities
(agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by D. Del Gaizo, avvocata dello Stato): Application for a
declaration that:

— by failing to ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
workers who use display screen equipment
for the
purposes of Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC
of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
requirements for work with display screen equipment
(fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156,
p. 14);

— by failing to ensure a supplementary opthalmological
examination in all cases where regular eye and eyesight
tests show that this is necessary; and

— by failing to specify the circumstances in which the
workers concerned are to be provided with special
corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of that directive,

(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
the Court
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/19

and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 24 October 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which
the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective
the work concerned, the Italian
appliances appropriate for
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)
of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
minimum safety and health requirements for work with display
screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);

Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P
and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in
Case C-25/01 P.

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 November 2002

In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain
Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (1)

(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to
the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender
— Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur
de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality
wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on
label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation
No 2392/89)

(2002/C 323/23)

(Language of the case: French)

(2002/C 323/24)

(Language of the case: French)

(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 Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
the European
to the proceedings being: Commission of
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth

In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
ris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled: