Case C-166/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, alloy, consumer protection, gold, marketing

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Ordinario di Milano by order of that Court of 21 February
2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by
Andrea Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy
and AGEA (Agency for Agricultural subsidies)

(Case C-162/03)

(2003/C 135/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
Milano (Milan District Court) of 21 February 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 7 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by Andrea
Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy and AGEA
(Agency for Agricultural subsidies) on the following question:

Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

( 1) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 10.
( 2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.

tion into groundwater of substances in list II of Directive
80/68/EEC so as to avoid pollution of that water by these
substances, by not subjecting to prior investigation any
disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of the
dangerous substances in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC,
which might
lead to indirect discharge, and by not
subjecting to prior investigation all direct discharge of
substances in list II of Directive 80/68/EEC and the
disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of those
substances which might lead to indirect discharge, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
17 December 1979 (1) on the protection of groundwater
against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;

— declare that, by failing to failing to take the necessary
measures to record and identify hazardous waste in the
Thriasio Pedio area, where tipping (discharge) of such
waste takes place, and, by failing to draw up, either
separately or in the framework of their general waste
management plans, plans for the management of hazard-
ous waste in the Thriasio Pedio area, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and
6(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
1991 on hazardous waste (2);

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Directive 80/68/EEC

— Infringement of Directive 91/689/EEC.

Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(1) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
(2) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.

(Case C-163/03)

(2003/C 135/28)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by V. Jordana and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal
Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-166/03)

(2003/C 135/29)

— declare that, by failing to take the necessary steps to
prevent the introduction into groundwater of substances
in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC and to limit the introduc-

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April

C 135/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2003

2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ to items stamped
as being of a fineness of 750/000 parts of gold while
items stamped with a fineness of 375 or 585/000 parts
of gold are to be termed ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC of
the EC Treaty

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The requirement at issue prohibits the marketing under the
name of ‘gold’ of items containing 585 or 375 thousandths
parts of gold which may be termed such in their Member State
of origin,
thus rendering marketing of such items more
difficult.

That prohibition cannot be justified by the requirements of
consumer protection and fair trading, since adequate labelling
is sufficient.

Action brought on 11 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-168/03)

(2003/C 135/30)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral, of it Legal Service,
acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by providing in Article 1 of the Disposición
Transitoria Única (single transitional provision) of Real
Decreto (Royal Decree) No 1215/1997 of 18 July 1997,
laying down minimum health and safety requirements
for the use of work equipment by workers, an additional
adjustment period for work equipment already available
to workers at the undertaking and/or plant prior to

27 August 1997, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 10 and 249 EC and
Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/655/EEC (1) of
30 November 1989, amended by Directive 95/63/EC (2)
of 5 December 1995 Council Directive 95/63/EC of
5 December 1995 amending Directive 89/655/EEC con-
cerning the minimum safety and health requirements for
the use of work equipment by workers at work.

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 1(1) of the Disposición Transitoria Única of the royal
decree grants a period of 12 months from the entry into force
thereof for any equipment already in use in undertakings to be
brought into conformity with the requirements set down in
Annex I thereto (which corresponds to Annex I
to the
directive). Since the royal decree entered into force on
27 August 1997, that period allowed Spanish businesses a
transitional period which is much longer than that provided
for in Article 4(1)(b) of the directive.

Articles 1(2), (3) and (4) of the Disposición Transitoria Única
provide that, when for specific objective reasons it is impossible
in certain sectors for work equipment to be brought into
conformity within the 12-month period, the employment
authorities, upon the reasoned request of the most representa-
tive associations of employers in the sector and after consulting
the most representative unions in that sector, may exception-
ally authorise a plan to bring work equipment into conformity
with Annex I to the royal decree (which corresponds to
Annex I to the directive) of a duration not greater than
five years having regard to the seriousness, importance and
significance of the objective circumstances relied on. Appli-
cations for approval of such a plan were to be submitted, in
accordance with that provision, within nine months from the
entry into force of the royal decree (that is to say, by 27 June
1998), and the competent employment authority was to take
a decision thereon within the ensuing three months.

The Commission takes the view that that additional transitional
period is incompatible with the requirements of Article 4(1)(b)
of the directive and is entirely unjustified.

(1) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning
the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work
equipment by workers at work (second individual Directive within
the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC — OJ
1989 L 393, p. 13.

(2) Council Directive — OJ 1995 L 335, p. 28.