Case C-83/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, harbour installation, project evaluation, tourism

10.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

4.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

the question of whether

Does the content of the reference for a preliminary ruling,
together with the supporting documents, afford the
Court, in the light of its judgment in Case C-392/93
British Telecommunications [1996] (2), sufficient infor-
mation to answer
the
implementing provisions described fall within the scope
for discretion afforded to the national legislator under
Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems or does the Court leave it to the referring court
to answer this question?

( 1) European Court Reports 2001 p. I-09285.
( 2) European Court Reports 1996 p. I-01631.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
gericht by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the
case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José Filipe
Pereira Félix

(Case C-60/03)

(2003/C 112/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 14 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José
Filipe Pereira Félix on the following question:

Does Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty)
preclude a national system whereby, when subcontracting the
conduct of building work to another undertaking, a building
contractor becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who
has waived benefit of execution, for the obligation on that
undertaking or that undertaking’s subcontractors to pay the
minimum wage to a worker or to pay contributions to a
communal scheme for parties to a collective agreement where
the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker
after tax, social security contributions, payments towards the
promotion of employment or other such social
insurance
payments have been deducted (net pay), if the safeguarding of
workers’ pay is not the primary objective of the legislation or
is merely a subsidiary objective?

Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-83/03)

(2003/C 112/17)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

a)

its
find that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment in as much as it failed properly to determine
whether a project for the construction of a tourist port at
Fassacesia (Chieti) — a project covered by Annex II to the
directive — warranted the commencement of a procedure
to assess its impact on the environment, and

b)

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian authorities have given the Commission no expla-
nation of the reasons for which they took the view that there
impact assessment, in
was no need for an environmental
accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, to be
carried out in relation to a project for the construction of a
tourist port in Fassacesia (Chieti).

It is therefore unclear whether the characteristics of the project
were considered with reference to its possible impact on fauna
and flora and on the landscape. The fact that the area in
question has not been proposed as a Site of Community
Importance is all the more reason why the project’s impact on
fauna and flora and on the landscape should have been taken
into consideration. Moreover, the fact that this point was
considered only after building permission had already been
granted is further indication that the procedure followed was
incoherent, to say the least.

C 112/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

Despite the absence from the directive of guidelines and
criteria for determining whether there is any need to conduct
an assessment of the environmental impact of a given project,
Article 4(2) cannot be regarded as having been correctly
applied where there is no reasonable justification for a decision
not to subject a project to that procedure.

4.

If the answer is in the negative, may the courts of the
Member States extend the meaning of a commercial agent
to cover the foregoing person, by analogical application
of
legislation which incorporated the
directive into their domestic law, or is that impermissible
because it runs counter to the uniformity of Community
law?

their national

( 1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(1) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Polimeles
Protodikio Athinon by judgment of that Court of 27 April
2001 in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia O.E. against
Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia

(Case C-85/03)

(2003/C 112/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Polimeles Protodi-
kio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 27 April 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia
O.E. against Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia on
the following questions:

1. Does the definition of a commercial agent in Article 1(2)
of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) extend to a self-
employed intermediary who purchases in his own name
goods from the principal, deducting his commission from
the purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal?

2.

3.

If the answer is in the negative, in the present instance
has the definition of commercial agent laid down by
that article been laid down in contradistinction to the
foregoing person (that
is to say to a self-employed
intermediary who purchases in his own name goods
from the principal, deducting his commission from the
purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal), or is
there in fact a lacuna?

If there is a lacuna, is it possible, on the basis of the
principles of equity,
for the foregoing definition in
Article 1(2) of the directive to be applied by analogy to a
self-employed intermediary who purchases in his own
name goods from the principal, deducting his com-
mission from the purchase price, and subsequently sells
those goods to third parties, but acting on behalf of the
principal?

Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-86/03)

(2003/C 112/19)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
represented by Ekaterini Samoni-Radou and Panayiotis Milon-
opoulos, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2575 final of
17 December 2002 on a request by Greece for authoris-
ation to use heavy fuel oils with a maximum sulphur
content of 3 % by mass in part of its territory; (1)

declare Directive 1999/32/EC inapplicable on the basis
of Article 241 of the EC Treaty; and

3.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of rights of defence;

— Infringement of the principle of effectiveness (effet utile);

— Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate

expectations;

— Infringement of the principle of proportionality;

— Infringement of Article 252 EC.

(1) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 16.