Case C-437/02: Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2003-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, criminal procedure, fishery management, fishing controls, fishing rights

C 31/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.2.2003

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

2.

The Commission considers that the measures taken are
not sufficient to ensure that the landfill site ‘Pera Galinon’
is operated in a manner which does not create risks to
the natural and man-made environment and which is
consistent with the obligations arising from Article 4 of
the directive.

In the Commission’s view, the Hellenic Republic has
exceeded the limits of the discretion conferred on it by
Article 4 of the directive, since over a long period it has
taken effective action to avert pollution of the
not
environment and to protect the health of inhabitants
from the unlawful deposit of waste at the Pera Galinon
site in the prefecture of Heraklion, Crete.

3.

The Commission observes that the landfill site in question
operates without a permit which meets the conditions
laid down in Article 9 of the directive.

( 1) OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ No L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the
Commission of the European Communities against the
Hellenic Republic

1.

2.

The Commission considers that the tax which is levied in
respect of the validation of invoices for the import of
pharmaceutical products that come from the Community
is contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty (now Article 25
EC) and thus constitutes a charge having an effect
equivalent to that of customs duty.

The Commission observes that classification as a charge
having equivalent effect does not depend on what the
charge is called or its amount.

3. None of the three exceptions preventing classification as

a charge having equivalent effect applies.

4.

Infringement of Article 133 of the EC Treaty.

Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-437/02)

(2003/C 31/13)

(Case C-426/02)

(2003/C 31/12)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 December 2002 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and T. van Rijn,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 No-
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, of
its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should

— declare that

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that by applying, for the benefit of the Ethniko
Organismo Farmakon (National Organisation for Medi-
cines), a charge in respect of the validation of invoices on
the import of raw materials for pharmaceutical use, semi-
finished products and finished products from other
Member States or non-member countries, the Hellenic
Republic has
its obligations under
Articles 23, 25 and 133 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community;

failed to fulfil

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

1.

2.

3.

by failing to enact appropriate detailed rules for the
distribution and use of the fishing rights allocated to
it,

and by failing to monitor compliance with the
Community legislation on preservation by monitor-
ing fishing and related activities and by appropriate
inspection of the fishing fleet and related activities,

and by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by
vessels flying its flag or registered in its territory
when the quotas allocated to it were deemed to be
exhausted,

8.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/9

4.

and by failing to institute criminal or administrative
proceedings against masters or other persons
responsible for fishing taking place after the prohib-
ition of fishing,

the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (1) and
Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
and

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

A b s e n c e o f a p p r o p r i a t e d e t a i l e d r u l e s c o n -
c e r n i n g t h e u s e o f a l l o c a t i o n s

Certain stocks of fish referred to in the annexes to the aforesaid
regulations were overfished in 1995 and 1996 by vessels
flying the Finnish flag. It appears from the Finnish Govern-
ment’s response to the Commission’s reasoned opinion that
Finland accepts the Commission’s complaint of overfishing in
1995 and 1996 as specified in detail in the tables annexed to
the Commission’s official notice.

A b s e n c e
a n d m o n i t o r i n g
m e a s u r e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e u s e o f a l l o c a t i o n s

i n s p e c t i o n

o f

It is clear on the basis of the excess fishing which took place
in 1995 and 1996 that Finland breached Article 2 of the
monitoring regulation. In its response to the Commission’s
reasoned opinion Finland accepts that the monitoring arrange-
ments did not operate adequately. Finland refers in particular
to the difficulties which derived from Finland’s accession to
the European Union and the changes required by membership
to the Finnish legislation on fishing.

L a t e s u s p e n s i o n o f f i s h i n g

A b s e n c e o f c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s o r a d m i n -
i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n

It appears from the Finnish Government’s answer to the
Commission’s reasoned opinion that no measures in accord-
ance with Article 31 of the monitoring Regulation No 2847/
93 have been taken.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
(OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Stockholms
tingsrätt by decision of of 29 November 2002 in the case
of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner

(Case C-438/02)

(2003/C 31/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of Stockholms tingsrätt
of 29 November 2002, which was received at the Court
Registry on 4 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner on the following questions:

1.

There is an independent system at national level for the
testing and approval of medicinal products intended to
maintain good quality for medicinal products and prevent
damaging effects of medicinal products. Certain medicinal
products also require a prescription from a registered
doctor. In such circumstances does Article 31 of the EC
Treaty preclude national legislation which provides that
retail trade in medicinal products may only be carried on
by the State or by legal persons in which the State has a
determining influence, the objective of which is to meet
the need for safe and effective medicinal products?

A Member State which terminates fishing only when it is
already known that the quota has been exceeded acts too late
and thus breaches its obligations under Article 21(2) of the
monitoring Regulation No 2847/93.
It is clear from the
Finnish Government’s response to the Commission’s reasoned
opinion that the national prohibition decisions were not made
in sufficient time to prevent excess fishing.

2. Does Article 28 of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such
in the light of the

as that described in Question 1,
information in that question.

3. Does Article 43 of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such
in the light of the

as that described in Question 1,
information in that question.