Case C-143/03: Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, electricity storage device, fuel cell, labelling, mercury

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/15

Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by T. van Rijn, acting as Agent.

(Case C-143/03)

(2003/C 135/21)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Luca Visaggio and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by subjecting alkaline manganese batteries
containing less than 0,0005 % of mercury by weight to a
marking system requiring, in particular, indication of the
presence of heavy metals, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Alkaline manganese batteries containing less than 0,0005 %
of mercury by weight do not
fall within the scope of
Council Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators
containing certain dangerous substances.

In the absence of harmonisation of national laws as regards
such goods, subjecting them to the marking requirement
provided for in Article 5(1) and (2) of Decree No 476/97
constitutes a barrier to the free movement of goods contrary
to Article 28 EC, there being no obvious overriding reason
relating to the public interest to justify its adoption.

1.

2.

3.

4.

failing to adopt adequate provisions governing the
utilisation of the quotas allocated to Belgium for the
fishing years 1991 to 1996,

failing to ensure observance of the Community
legislation on the conservation of fishery resources
by monitoring fishing activity and adequately moni-
toring the landing and recording of catches,

failing to impose a provisional ban on fishing by
vessels flying its flag or registered in its territory
once the quota allocated to Belgium had to be
regarded as exhausted,

failing to take penal or administrative measures
against the master or any other person responsible
for fishing after the entry into force of bans on
fishing or in the absence of a quota,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/
83 (1) of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community
system for the conservation and management of fishery
resources, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3760/92 (2) of 20 December 1992 establishing a
Community system for
fisheries and aquaculture,
Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2241/87 (3) of 23 July 1987 establishing certain
control measures for fishing activities and Articles 2,
21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2847/93 (4) of 12 October 1993 establishing a control
system applicable to the common fisheries policy;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Action brought on 1 April 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-149/03)

(2003/C 135/22)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April

Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83
and Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92: under these
provisions, the Member States are to lay down the criteria for
the distribution of the quotas allocated to them and detailed
rules for the utilisation of those quotas. The Commission finds
that, during the period 1991 to 1996, there was overfishing in
respect of 22 fishery resources and that, in several cases, the
quota was exceeded by more than 10 %, with the result that
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations.