Case C-112/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel, Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003 in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and Others
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract terms, insurance contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 112/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Swedish provisions on compulsory prior notification
(announcement by the national food administration (Livsmed-
elsverket) of 25 December 1998 — SLV FS 1998:39) are
inconsistent with the purpose of Directive 89/662/EEC in so
far as they do not recognise other checks carried out in other
Member States. It is true that spot checks are allowed under
Directive 89/662/EEC but the possibility of carrying out spot
checks cannot be used by a Member State to monitor the
effectiveness of the observance by other Member States of
another regulatory system. Article 3 of Directive 89/662/EEC
provides not only for official veterinary checks on production
establishments but also for regular checks to be carried out by
the competent authorities on establishments to ensure that the
products comply with the Community requirements or the
requirements of the Member State of destination. Furthermore,
under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/662 goods cannot
circulate freely if they are not marked in a certain manner and
accompanied by the necessary documentation.

The Swedish Government has submitted that the notification
requirement is necessary to ensure observance of the special
salmonella guarantees which apply on importation of certain
animal products into Sweden. In that connection, the Com-
mission points out that Directive 89/662/EEC offers a Member
State ample opportunity to take steps in the event that
breaches of Community rules are discovered when samples are
taken. For instance, Article 8 of the Directive lays down the
procedure to be applied if breaches are discovered by the
Member State of destination.

( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel,
Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003
in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux,
formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société
AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and
Others

(Case C-112/03)

(2003/C 112/26)

Grenoble (Commercial Chamber) of 20 February 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 13 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Société Financière & Industriel-
le du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against
Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge,
and Others on the following question:

May the insured beneficiary of a contract of
insurance
concluded on its behalf between a policyholder (subscribed)
and an insurer who are domiciled in the same Member State,
be made subject to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the
courts of that State, when it has not personally approved the
clause, when the damage occurred in another Member State
and when it has also applied for insurers domiciled in the same
State to be joined as parties to proceedings before a court of
that State?

Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-113/03)

(2003/C 112/27)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Ch. Giolitto and M. Shotter, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— Declare that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-
geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at
the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/
EC (1), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC
the Council of
of
24 September 1998 with regard to operator number
portability and carrier pre-selection (2), the French Repub-
lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
and

the European Parliament and of

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

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.