Case C-168/03: Action brought on 11 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, capital goods, occupational health, occupational safety, workplace

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.