Case C-94/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European convention, action for annulment (EU), chemical product, dangerous substance, international trade, legal basis, pesticide, powers of the institutions (EU)

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/27

Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Council of the
European Union

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 13 Feb-
ruary 2003 in the case of Mr Vincenzo Piliego against
Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles, C.P.A.S.

(Case C-94/03)

(2003/C 101/45)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Lena Ström
and Elisabetta Righini, acting as agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision of 19 December 2002 approving,
on behalf of the European Community, the Rotterdam
Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for
certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in inter-
national trade (1); and

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the

in nature. Rather,

The Commission’s request for annulment of the Decision is
founded on the violation of the Treaty resulting from the
erroneous choice of legal basis. The question of the legal basis
for the conclusion of the agreement cannot be regarded as
purely formal
choice between
Articles 133 and 175 EC has important implications for the
division of competence between the Community and its
the
Member States. As the Court has stated repeatedly,
Community’s competence in the field of trade is exclusive in
nature. This exclusivity is indispensable in order to ensure a
coherent and effective defence of the Community’s interest in
the field of international trade. In contrast, as follows from the
second subparagraph of Article 174(4) EC, the Community’s
external competencies in the field of the environment are
concurrent with those of the Member States. The choice of the
legal basis has also consequences with regard to the procedures
for the adoption of the Community act.

By basing its Decision concerning the conclusion of the PIC
Convention on Article 175(1) rather than Article 133 EC, the
Council has therefore violated the exclusive competence of the
Community for the conclusion of the PIC Convention.

( 1) OJ L 63 of 6.3.2003, p. 27.

(Case C-95/03)

(2003/C 101/46)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) of 13 February 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2003,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Mr Vincenzo Piliego against
Centre Public d’Aide Sociale de Bruxelles, C.P.A.S. on the
following questions:

1.

2.

Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 (1) to be interpreted as applying to a national of a
Member State who resides in another Member State in
order to seek employment there, who is housed in a
hostel approved by the public authorities where he
performs genuine and effective work in return for board
and lodging as part of a programme of rehabilitation by
work arranged by that institution, and who applies to the
social assistance services of the host State for a social
benefit under a non-contributory system guaranteeing
minimum financial means of subsistence?

In the alternative,
is Community law, and especially
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC, to be interpreted as
meaning that notwithstanding the restrictions imposed
by the domestic legislation of the host State, a citizen of
the Union lawfully residing in a Member State of which
he is not a national is entitled, on the same conditions as
nationals of the host State, to social benefits under a non-
contributory system guaranteeing minimum financial
means of subsistence? What if the host State decides to
terminate the residence permit of such European citizen
because he does not have adequate resources to avoid
becoming a burden on its social assistance system?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2).