Case C-154/03: Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, pressure equipment, roadworthiness tests, safety standard, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety

C 146/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

4.

The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective
judicial protection.

( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — by order of
that Court of 27 March 2003 in the case of Nürnberger
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Trans-
port International B.V.

(Case C-148/03)

(2003/C 146/46)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München — Zivilsenate in Augsburg — (Munich Higher
Regional Court, Civil Chambers in Augsburg) of 27 March
2003, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Nürnberger Allgemeine
Versicherungs AG against Portbridge Transport International
B.V. on the following question:

Do the provisions on jurisdiction contained in other conven-
tions take precedence over the general provisions on jurisdic-
tion in the Brussels Convention even where a defendant
domiciled in the territory of a State which is a party to the
Brussels Convention and against whom an action has been
brought before a court of another State which is a party to
that Convention fails to submit pleas as to the merits of the
case in the proceedings before that court?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de
Cassation of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judg-
ment of that Court of 6 March 2003 in the case of
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales against Ursula
SCHWARZ, née WEIDE

(Case C-153/03)

(2003/C 146/47)

1. Must Article 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the
Community (1) be interpreted as applying only where a
migrant worker is entitled to family benefits under the
legislation of the State of employment and under the
legislation of the State in which the members of his
family are resident?

2.

3.

If so, may the bodies of the State of employment suspend
entitlement to family benefits where they consider that a
refusal to grant family benefits in the State of residence is
incompatible with Community law?

If not, does Article 76 of Regulation No 1408/71 permit
the State of employment
to apply the rule against
aggregation of benefits where, under the law of the State
of residence of the family members, the worker’s spouse
receives or is entitled to similar family benefits?

(1) as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/

83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230, p. 6).

Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-154/03)

(2003/C 146/48)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation
(Court of Cassation) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg of
6 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on 3 April 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caisse Nationale des
Prestations Familiales against Ursula SCHWARZ, née WEIDE
on the following questions:

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/29

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on
transportable pressure equipment (1) and Commission
Directive 2001/2/EC of 4 January 2001 adapting the
latter directive to technical progress (2), or in any event
by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directives;

2.

order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

— annul the judgment issued by the Court of First Instance

of 28 January 2003 in case T-147/00, Servier;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

a)

Fundamental misinterpretation of the division of powers

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 December 2000 and 1 July 2001 respectively
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.

( 1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 20.
( 2) OJ L 5, 10.1.2001, p. 4.

Appeal brought on 4 April 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
28 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended
Composition) of
the
European Communities in case T-147/00 between Les
Laboratoires Servier and the Commission of the European
Communities

the Court of First Instance of

First, the appellant submits that it
is clear from the
assessment in the contested judgment that the Court
of First Instance has fundamentally misinterpreted the
division of powers between the Community and the
Member States in relation to harmonisation as regards
medicinal products for human use in general and to
Chapter III of Directive 75/319 (2) in particular.

The Court of First Instance takes the view, referring to
the judgment in T-74/00, Artegodan and others, that
Chapter III of Directive 75/319 provides both for ‘exclus-
ive competence of the Member States’ and for ‘exclusive
competence of the Commission’ and that it is therefore
necessary to determine whether there has been a ‘[transfer
of] competence from the Member States concerned to
the Community’.

In taking this stance, the Court of First Instance fails
to understand that the various provisions making up
Chapter III of Directive 75/319, including Articles 12 and
15a, which are particularly at issue here, are all based on
a system of powers shared between the Member States
and the Community. Chapter III thus gives Member States
the right to initiate certain procedures for granting,
varying or withdrawing marketing authorisations, and
lays on the Community, represented by the Commission,
a duty to achieve harmonisation by way of decisions
which the Member States are then required to implement.

(Case C-156/03 P)

(2003/C 146/49)

b)

Legal assessment based on a Commission decision which
was not the subject of the dispute

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2003
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-147/
00 (1) between Les Laboratoires Servier and the Commission
of the European Communities, was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 4 April 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by R. Wainwright and H. Støvlbæk, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

that

Still by way of a preliminary submission, the appellant
would point out
the Commission decision
(C(2000)573) of 9 March 2000 (the ‘2000 decision’)
which was the subject of the appeal at first instance, is
based on Article 15a(1) of Directive 75/319. However, it
must be noted that, rather than directly and specifically
interpreting this legal basis, the Court of First Instance
confines
to examining Commission decision
C(96)3608 final/1 of 9 December 1996 (the ‘1996
decision’) and other provisions of Directive 75/319 in
order to interpret Article 15a by pure deduction.

itself