Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services — Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC — Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State authorities)
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cultural heritage, freedom to provide services, tariff preference

C 44/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
ensure the correct transposition of Articles 11 and 22(1) of
Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on
the approximation of
laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of
animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

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

( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

Community fishery law precludes a national law such as that in issue
in the main proceedings, which prohibits, during a certain period, the
landing, on a part of the coastline of the Member State concerned, of
scallops fished in the territorial waters of another Member State.

(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

in Case C-265/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan): Annie Pansard
and Others (1)

(Origin of fishery products — Article 28 EC — National
law periodically prohibiting the landing of certain fishery
products — Competence of the Member States)

in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services —
Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC —
Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeologi-
cal digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments
— Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State
authorities)

(2003/C 44/15)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2003/C 44/14)

(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 Case C-265/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan, France, for
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Annie
Pansard and Others, en présence du Comité Region pêches
maritimes, a party to the main proceedings — on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 28 EC — the Court of Justice
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Chamber, and C. Gulmann, F. Macken (Rapporteur),
N. Colneric, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it ruled that:

In Case C-388/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a declaration
that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admis-
sion to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs,
parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by
local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian
nationals and persons resident within the territory of those
authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged
over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages
tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-
residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the
its obligations under
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
Articles 12 EC and 49 EC,
(Sixth Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
it:

the Court

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

1. Declares that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates
for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological
digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted
by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of
Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of
those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are
aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such
advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member
States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age
requirements,
its
obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC;

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirk-
shauptmannschaft Mistelbach (1)

(Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting
of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court
to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal
certainty)

(2003/C 44/16)

(Language of the case: German)

1.

2.

3.

4.

In the case of transport by more than one driver, Article 8(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation
of certain social legislation relating to road transport applies as
a lex specialis that prevails over paragraph 1 of that article.
Consequently, those provisions are not to be applied cumulat-
ively.

The same interpretation applies to Article 8(1) and (2) of the
European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles
engaged in International Road Transport (AETR).

It is for the national court to determine, having regard to the
facts of the main proceedings, whether it is appropriate to apply
the provisions of Regulation No 3820/85 or those of that
agreement.

Examination of Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 3820/
85 in the light of the principle of legal certainty has failed to
disclose any matters of such a kind as to affect its validity.

(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

in Case C-462/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Halmstads tingsrätt): Ulf Hammarsten (1)

(Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp
sector — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation
prohibiting all cultivation and possession of hemp without
prior authorisation)

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

(2003/C 44/17)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

In Case C-439/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Libor Cipra Vlastimil
Kvasnicka and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach, on the
interpretation and validity of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
it has ruled:

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

In Case C-462/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Halmstads tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
in criminal proceedings before it against Ulf Hammarsten on
the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of
the Community legislation applicable to the cultivation and
marketing of hemp, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it has ruled: