Case C-178/03: Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), chemical product, dangerous substance, exchange of information, trading operation

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/33

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to
comply with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Council
Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on
informing the general public about health protection
measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event
of a radiological emergency (1), the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

— Incorrect transposition of Article 8 of the directive: the
national provisions on informing the population or the
information to be given in the event of a radiological
emergency do not make binding provision for indicating
which authorities are responsible for applying the
measures envisaged by the directive.

(1) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Incorrect transposition of Article 2 of the directive: the
transposition measures taken concerned only some of the
situations referred to in that article. The given definition
of ‘radiological emergency’ was not transposed, and the
transposition measures do not cover the transport and
storage of nuclear fuels or radioactive wastes, the manu-
facture, use, storage, disposal and transport of radioiso-
topes for agricultural,
industrial, medical and related
scientific and research purposes, or the use of radioiso-
topes for power generation in space vehicles. In addition,
the measures concern only risks connected with instal-
lations in French territory and not those connected with
installations outside that territory.

— Incorrect transposition of Article 3 of the directive: the
transposition measures taken contain no definition of the
terms ‘significant release of radioactive material’ and
‘abnormal levels of radioactivity which are likely to be
detrimental to public health’.

— Incorrect transposition of Article 5 of the directive: as
already indicated in relation to the transposition of
Article 2 of the directive, the transposition measures as
regards informing the population do not cover all
the installations and all the activities envisaged by the
directive.

— Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: the
national provisions on informing the population in the
event of a radiological emergency do not require that the
population be informed without delay.

— Incorrect transposition of Article 7 of the directive: the
measures referred to in the directive for informing
persons likely to be involved in the organisation of
assistance in the event of a radiological emergency, for
example, are reproduced only in a circular, which does
not comply with the requirements for legal certainty
imposed by the Court’s case-law.

Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission
the European
of

the European Communities against
Parliament and the Council of the European Union

(Case C-178/03)

(2003/C 146/55)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 24 April 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
G. zur Hausen, L. Ström and E. Righini, acting as agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003
concerning the export and import of dangerous chemi-
cals;

— declare that the effects of the Regulation shall remain in
force until the Council has adopted a new regulation;

— order the European Parliament and the Council to pay

the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The PIC Regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on
the Prior Informed Consent procedure for certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, hereinafter
the ‘PIC Convention’.

C 146/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

The PIC Convention establishes the principle that import and
export of a chemical covered by it can only take place with the
prior informed consent of the importing Party. The PIC
Convention establishes a procedure as a means to formally
obtain and disseminate the decisions of importing Parties and
to ensure compliance with these decisions by the exporting
Parties, called the ‘PIC procedure’.

The Commission considers that the PIC Regulation falls within
the scope of the Community’s common commercial policy.
The Regulation should therefore, as proposed by the Com-
mission, have been adopted as a Council Regulation based on
Article 133 EC and not as a European Parliament and Council
Regulation based on Article 175(1) EC, which concerns
measures adopted in the field of the Community’s environmen-
tal policy. The Commission maintains that the choice by the
European Parliament and the Council of the legal basis for the
adoption of the PIC Regulation is erroneous and the act in
question is therefore illegal and should be annulled.

( 1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1.

Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic
of Germany against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-183/03)

(2003/C 146/56)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
Moritz Lumma, Regierungsdirektor, and Annette Tiemann,
Regierungsrätin z. A., Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurhein-
dorfer Straße 108, D-53117 Bonn.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February
2003 — C(2003) 500 final — excluding from Com-
munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the
Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) in so far as an amount of EUR 26 446 500,00
is excluded from Community financing and imputed to
the Federal Republic of Germany and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against the contested decision in so far
as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of
EUR 26 446 505,00 incurred by the Federal Republic of
Germany in respect of the arable crops sector in Brandenburg
for crop years 1999 and 2000 and imputes it to the Federal
Republic of Germany. That amount represents a flat-rate
correction of 5 % of the expenditure notified for the Land of
Brandenburg for crop years 1999 and 2000 in the arable crops
sector.

In the opinion of
the Federal Republic of Germany, the
decision was adopted in breach of procedural rules and general
principles of Community law. The Commission’s inspection
findings and conclusions, which formed the basis of the
decision, were incorrect in a number of material
factual
respects and, moreover, were based on a misinterpretation of
law. A flat-rate imputation of 5 % is therefore completely
illegal. That follows from the following seven pleas in law:

— Procedural errors. The complaints subsequently made by

the Commission:

— ‘no reliable or current data on the parcels in the
Allgemeines Liegenschaftsbuch (General Register of
Real Property) (ALB)’ (Under Paragraph 12 of the
Gesetz über die Landesvermessung und das Liegen-
schaftskataster
in Brandenburg (Law on Topo-
graphic Survey and the Land Register in Branden-
burg — VermLiegG), the ALB constitutes, together
with the real property map and real property data,
the cadastre of the Land of Brandenburg. It is held
on computer),

— ‘double applications not detectable’,

— ‘there is hardly any or no connection between the
parcels entered in the land register and those in
agricultural use’ and

— ‘it was not always possible to check and measure the
specified agricultural parcels on the basis of, for
example, maps or aerial photographs, since the
holdings do not enclose with their applications
any maps or sketches of the specified agricultural
parcels’,

were not communicated to the German authorities in due
time. Breach of the procedure for the clearance of the
accounts (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/
1999 (1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/
95 (2) and breaches of the principles of the right to a fair
hearing and proper administration are therefore alleged.

— Reliability of the land identification system. In its second
plea in law, the Federal Government defends itself against
the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the
reliability of the identification system.