Case C-61/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, exchange of information, radioactive effluent

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/19

2.2. Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests
appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be
compared? In particular:

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(a)

(b)

is the answer affected by the fact that the
ultimate
limited
consumer/patient derives
financial advantage from the parallel trade and

is account to be taken, and to what extent, of
the interests of social
insurance bodies in
cheaper medicinal products?

2.3. What other criteria and approaches are considered

appropriate in the present case?

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-61/03)

(2003/C 101/31)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
L. Ström and X. Lewis, acting as agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty by failing to provide the
Commission with general data relating to any plan for
the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form
resulting from the decommissioning operations of the
JASON reactor; and

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the opinion that the United Kingdom
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 37 of the
Euratom Treaty to provide the Commission with general data
relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in
whatever form resulting from the decommissioning operations
of the JASON reactor, thus making it
impossible for the
Commission to determine whether the implementation of
such a plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination
of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

(Case C-62/03)

(2003/C 101/32)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(a), 1(e),
1(f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991 (2), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
European Community;

2)

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 91/156/EEC required Member States to bring into
force such laws, regulations and administrative provisions as
are necessary to comply with that directive no later than
1 April 1993, and to inform the Commission forthwith.
Article 2(2) thereof provides that Member States shall commu-
nicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of
national
law that they adopt in the field governed by the
directive.

As a result of an assessment of the national
legislation
communicated as transposing the directive the Commission
found a number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United
Kingdom’s transposition and concludes that Articles 1(a), 1(e),
1(f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the directive have
not been correctly transposed into the United Kingdom
legislation.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.