Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-240/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Directive 79/409/EEC — Protection of wild birds and their habitats — Special protection areas)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, environmental protection, hunting regulations

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Request by the Council of the European Union for an
Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

(Opinion 1/03)

(2003/C 101/01)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has received
a request for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC, lodged
at the Court Registry on 10 March 2003 by the Council of the
European Union, represented by J. Schutte and J.-P. Hix, acting
as Agents.

The Council of the European Union asks the Court of Justice
to reply to the following question:

Does conclusion of the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters, as provided for at points 8 to 12 of this
document,
fall entirely within the Community’s exclusive
competence or is competence shared between the Community
and the Member States?

against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition) in Case T-92/98 Interporc v Commission [1999] ECR
II-3521, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the
other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker), the Court, compo-
sed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Cham-
bers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Interporc Im- und Export GmbH to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

in Case C-41/00 P: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

in Case C-240/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Republic of Finland (1)

(Appeals — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Access
to documents — Documents held by the Commission and
emanating from the Member States or third countries —
Authorship rule)

(2003/C 101/02)

(Language of the case: German)

(Directive 79/409/EEC — Protection of wild birds and their
habitats — Special protection areas)

(2003/C 101/03)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(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-41/00 P, Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, estab-
lished in Hamburg (Germany), (Agent: G.M. Berrisch): Appeal

In Case C-240/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Paasivirta and R.B. Wainwright) v Republic of

C 101/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä): Application for a declaration
that, by failing to classify special protection areas fully and
its
definitively, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 79/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen
and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in
which it:

(1) Declares that, by failing to classify fully and definitively the
SPAs in its territory, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds.

(2) Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 25 February 2003

in Case C-326/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Idryma
Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) v Vasilios Ioannidis (1)

(Social security — Hospital treatment of a pensioner during
a stay in a Member State other than the State in which he
resides — Conditions for funding — Articles 31 and 96 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 31 and 93 of
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72)

(2003/C 101/04)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-326/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon (IKA) and Vasilios
Ioannidis on the interpretation of Articles 31 and 36 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
1983 L 230, p. 6), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ 1995 L 335, p. 10), of

Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of
21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended and updated by
Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/
95, of Articles 56 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 46 EC and 49 EC) and 60 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 50 EC), and of Article 1 of the Protocol to
the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rod-
ríguez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, V. Skouris,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 25 February 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
their families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95
of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that
enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that provision
to pensioners staying in a Member State other than their State
of residence is not subject to the condition that the illness which
necessitated the treatment in question manifested itself suddenly
during such a stay, making that
immediately
necessary. That provision therefore precludes a Member State
from subjecting that enjoyment to such a condition.

treatment

2. Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
lation No 3096/95, precludes a Member State from subjecting
the enjoyment of the benefits in kind guaranteed by that
provision to any authorisation procedure.

3.

The provision and funding of the benefits in kind referred to in
Article 31 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and
updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regu-
lation No 3096/95, must normally take place in accordance
with the provisions of that article in conjunction with Article 36
of that regulation and Articles 31 and 93 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the
procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
amended by Regulation No 3096/95.