Case C-135/03: Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural production, consumer protection, labelling, milk product, organic product

24.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/11

The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.

The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by
declaring the application inadmissible,
the Court of First
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.

Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.

( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.03.2001, p. 24.
( 3) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 39.
( 4) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 45.

referring thereto on agricultural products and food-
stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/
95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 (3); by failing to adopt
the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of
that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-
tion with Article 10a of
the abovementioned
amended regulation; and by failing to adopt
measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
as to the method of manufacture or production
of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of
20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
of
the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (4); and

— by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
contrary to the same provisions, use of the term
‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
for dairy products in respect of which that term has
been customarily and continuously used when they
have not been obtained in accordance with organic
production methods,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;

Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(Case C-135/03)

(2003/C 124/18)

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— Declare that:

Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
the term designating organic agricultural
derivatives of
methods in any of the official
languages of the European
Community for products which have not been obtained by
means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.

— by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in
current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in
combination with other terms, for products which
have not been obtained in accordance with organic
production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in
conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2092/91 (1) of 24 June 1991 on organic
production of agricultural products and indications

National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
(Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
by Real Decreto 506/2001,
infringes Regulation (EEC)
No 2092/91.

C 124/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2003

Such national
legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of
Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in
particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,
quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
ture or production.

( 1) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.

( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-
duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.

( 4) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
of Germany

(Case C-139/03)

(2003/C 124/19)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and
Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

the necessary laws,
declare that, by failing to adopt
regulations and administrative provisions to implement
Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000
amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the
Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
directive;

2.

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
5 December 2001.

(1) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.

Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Sweden

(Case C-141/03)

(2003/C 124/20)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other
provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive
2000/52/EC (1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/
723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations
between Member States and public undertakings or, in
any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the directive, and

— Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments

The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
on 31 July 2001.

(1) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
(2) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.