Case C-225/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of goods, health legislation, medical device, medical diagnosis, public health, test tube fertilisation

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

designated by the Flemish Region and is incomplete.
Finally,
the report on the Flemish Region does not
reproduce all the documents and information required by
Article 10 in conjunction with Annex V to the directive.

Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by Emilio Cappelli,
Paolo De Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar.

— The Walloon Region has infringed Articles 10(2) and 12
of the directive in that the procedure of defining waters
and subsequently designating vulnerable zones covers
only a part of its territory and was finished belatedly and
the designation of vulnerable zones remains insufficient
to date. In addition, the competent Walloon authority did
not take into account the pollution of coastal and marine
waters when identifying waters affected by pollution and
designating vulnerable zones, in breach of Article 3 of
the directive. It also infringed Article 5 of the directive,
since after it designated two vulnerable zones in its
territory the Walloon Region should have established
action programmes within the prescribed period, whereas
those programmes have not yet been adopted to date.

( 1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources (OJ L 375 of 21.12.1991, p. 1).

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-61/00 and
T-62/00.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants allege that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:

— erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-

ciple of force majeure;

— erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
ciple of proportionality and of Articles 9(1) and 17(2)(b)
of Regulation No 355/77; inadequate reasoning inasmuch
as it was manifestly illogical and contradictory;

— breach of the rights of the rights of the defence for failure

to fulfil the obligation to carry out an inquiry;

— failure to rule on whether a measure of inquiry was

appropriate.

Appeal brought on 21 May 2003 by Associazione Produt-
tori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the judgment deliver-
ed on 6 March 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00 Associazione Produttori Oli-
vicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori
Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission

Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-225/03)

(2003/C 171/24)

(Case C-222/03 P)

(2003/C 171/23)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by L. Ström and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2003
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/
(APOL) and
00 Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali
(AIPO) v Com-
Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli
mission was brought before the Court of
the
Justice of
European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Associazione

1.

declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic
medical devices (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
the Commission of such provisions, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

C 171/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The
Commission received from the French authorities Order
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.

( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

(Case C-227/03)

(2003/C 171/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) pre-
clude legislation of a Member State under which a person
who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
remains insured under that legislation only if he continues
to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under
the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain
other branches of social security irrespective of his place
of residence?

2. Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
State the person has the option of being voluntarily
insured in respect of a number of branches of social
security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?

If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
question is referred in the alternative:

3.

In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
a residence requirement?

(1) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy

(Case C-228/03)

(2003/C 171/26)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Korkein oikeus
(Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:

When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
89/104/EEC (1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks:

(1) What are the criteria

(a) on the basis of which the question of regarding a
product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
and

(b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
as other than spare parts and accessories which can
also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
are to be determined?

(2)

Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
subparagraph on another basis?