Case C-177/03: Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental risk prevention, exchange of information, nuclear safety, occupational safety, public safety, radioactivity

C 146/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003
in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for
Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron

1.

a.

(Case C-170/03)

(2003/C 146/52)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 11 April 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal
in cassation by the State
Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron on the following
questions:

1. Must a car which is made available to a natural person by
his employer and is used by him for both business and
private purposes be regarded as personal property within
the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 918/83 (1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community
system of reliefs from customs duty?

2. Must Article 3(a) of that regulation requiring property to
have been in the possession of the person concerned at
least six months before the date on which he gave up his
normal place of residence in the country of origin be
interpreted as meaning that the person concerned who
has had property made available to him, albeit free of
charge, in the context of his employment by the owner
of the property in question, is to be deemed to be in
possession of
the
abovementioned provision?

the property for the purposes of

3.

Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2 that
during the whole period of six months the person
concerned had the right to buy the car?

( 1) OJ L 105 [1983], p. 1.

b.

c.

Is Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
No 1182/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
period expressed in weeks such as that laid down by
Article 50a of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) ends
with the expiry of whichever day in the last week is
the same day of the week as the day following the
day on which the slaughter took place?

Is a Member State free, when applying Article 50a
of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, to establish the
time at which a premium application has been
to national rules of procedure
lodged pursuant
which apply within the national legal system of that
Member State to comparable, national periods for
making applications?

If not, must Article 50a of Regulation (EEC)
No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that a
premium application has been ‘lodged’ in due time
if it can be shown to have been posted prior to the
expiry of the three-week period and to have been
received by the competent authority at such a time
that it could have communicated the relevant data
to the Commission on the same day as would have
been the case had the premium application been
received by the competent authority within that
period?

2.

Is Article 50a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 valid in
so far as it prevents applicants from receiving the full
amount of the premium in respect of each occasion on
which the period for making applications is exceeded,
irrespective of the way in which and extent to which this
is done?

(1) OJ L 124 of 8.6.1971, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 20.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap
Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of ‘firma
Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en Vlees

Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French
Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case C-171/03)

(2003/C 146/53)

(Case C-177/03)

(2003/C 146/54)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 2 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on
14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under
the name of ‘firma Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en
Vlees on the following questions:

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Jürgen Grunwald and Bruno Stromsky, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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’.