Case C-49/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Economic Interest Grouping, agricultural production, farmer, interpretation of the law, organic farming, producer organisation, withdrawal from the market

C 70/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

The Applicant submits that the documents communicated to
the Commission constituted an application for final payment
in accordance with Article 52(5) and that in concluding to the
contrary the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest
error of assessment.

It is also submitted that the Commission’s interpretation of the
Regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty and of
proportionality.

The Applicant submits that if the Commission’s interpretation
of Article 52(5) of the Regulation and/or the Annex to its
Decision C(92) 1358/8 is correct, the absolute nature of those
provisions is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, those provisions contravene the principle of
legal certainty in that they are not sufficiently clearly and
precisely drafted and that, in these circumstances, it is submit-
ted that, by virtue of Article 241 EC, the provisions of the
Regulation and the Decision are inapplicable against the United
Kingdom.

The Applicant maintains that the decision of the Commission
contained in its letter of 22 November 2002 does not disclose
the principle issues of law and of fact upon which it is based
and should therefore be annulled on grounds of lack of
reasoning.

Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-48/03)

(2003/C 70/28)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 February 2003 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, acting
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
materials, and, in any event, by failing to inform the
Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned direc-
tive;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

2) T h e D e c i s i o n

r e c o v e r y
t o
9 2 7 2 7 6 7 E u r o s o f E R D F A s s i s t a n c e

s e e k

o f

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant submits that the decision letter of 22 November
2002 by which the Commission notified the United Kingdom
that it was obliged to issue a recovery order for the sum of
9 272 767 Euros should be annulled on the following grounds:

— that

the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
interpretation and/or made a manifest error of assess-
ment;

— that the decision contravened the principles of good
administration, Community solidarity, regional partner-
ship and the principle of cooperation between Com-
munity institutions and Member States (Article 10 EC);

— lack of adequate reasoning.

( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161,
26.06.1999, p. 1).

The period for transposition expired on 2 May 2001.

(1) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court
of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against
Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et
Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)

(Case C-49/03)

(2003/C 70/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/19

Rennes, Septième Chambre (Court of Appeal, Rennes, Seventh
Chamber) of 5 February 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Alain Rousseau against Association Comité Économique
Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL) on the
following questions:

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-66/03)

(2003/C 70/30)

In view of the provisions of Article 3 of Council Regulation
No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 (1), where a Member State
applies the provisions of Article 15b(1) and (8) of Council
Regulation No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 (2) by making certain
production and marketing rules mandatory for producers
established within the area of an economic committee who do
not belong to it and by making them liable for all or part of
the membership fees paid by producers who do belong to it,
is it admissible and well founded for a farmer engaged in
organic farming to invoke the principle of non-discrimination
on the ground, in particular, that the rules prescribed by the
economic committee in respect of market withdrawal render
its activity of little or no interest to him.

( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on
organic production of agricultural products and indications
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198
of 22.07.1991, p. 1).

( 2) Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on
the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables
(OJ L 118 of 20.05.1972, p. 1).

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(a)

declare that by failing to bring into force and/or inform
the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrat-
ive provisions necessary to comply with Commission
Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
protection of the health and safety of workers from the
risks related to chemical agents at work (1) the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty, and

(b) order the French Republic to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation ended on 31 Decem-
ber 2001.

(1) OJ L 142, 16.06.2000, p. 47.