Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, market approval, marketing, pesticide

C 135/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2003

use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual
Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/
391/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of
5 December 1995;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

the light of all the factual and legal evidence available to it,
whether or not
the results of analyses of samples of a
manufacturer’s products are to be admitted as evidence that the
manufacturer has infringed a Member State’s national rules on
foodstuffs where the manufacturer has been unable to exercise
his right to a second opinion under the second subparagraph of
Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397. In that regard, the national
court must verify that the national rules on the taking of
evidence applicable to such an action are not less favourable
than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of
equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible
rights conferred by
the exercise of
or excessively difficult
Community law (the principle of effectiveness). In addition, the
national court must consider whether such evidence must be
excluded in order to avoid measures incompatible with com-
pliance with fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair
hearing before a tribunal as laid down in Article 6(1) of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms.

in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (1)

(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.

(Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs —
Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples
— Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility
of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an
infringement of the right to a second opinion)

(2003/C 135/08)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-276/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
Joachim Steffensen, on the interpretation of
the second
subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC
of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989
L 186, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it has ruled:

1.

The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive
89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of
foodstuffs is to be construed as meaning that a manufacturer
may rely on a right to a second opinion based on that article
against the competent authorities of a Member State where
those authorities claim that his products fail to meet the
standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs on the
basis of an analysis of samples of those products taken from
retail outlets.

2.

It is for the national court before which an action such as that
at issue in the main proceedings has been brought to assess, in

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the pre-
scribed period)

(2003/C 135/09)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-114/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and E. Puisais): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
its
L 123, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/7

obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it:

— the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 6 February 2003, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
of biocidal products on the market, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2. Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 6 February 2003

in Case C-492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Commission Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999
amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
countries from which the import of fishery products is
authorised for human consumption — Prohibition on the
importation of caviar from Kazakhstan — Non-contractual
liability of the Community — Appeal partly manifestly
inadmissible and partly unfounded)

(2003/C 135/10)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case 492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established in
Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer —
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities, Fifth Chamber, of 23 October
2001 in Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen v Commission
[2001] ECR II-3143, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejhar)

Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-87/03)

(2003/C 135/11)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 (1) of
20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing oppor-
tunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks
and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community
waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch
limitations are required, in so far as it allocates certain
quotas to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of
the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: on
completion of the transitional period on 31 December
2002, the situation of Spanish fishermen is the same as
that of fishermen of the remaining Member States and
they should enjoy equal access to waters and resources.
However, by the contested regulation, Spanish fishermen
are treated differently, since they are not allowed to fish
in the waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea for
virtually all the species subject to quotas.