Case C-239/03: Action brought on 4 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, Mediterranean Sea, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, pollution from land-based sources, water pollution

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/23

those directives be interpreted as

requiring the
Must
national court to favour the interpretation of national law
obliging consumer credit institutions to bring to the atten-
tion of the consumer the clause concerning the variation
in that annual percentage rate of charge before each
renewal of the agreement?

by G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

2. Must those directives be interpreted as designed solely to
to organise the

the consumer or, beyond that,

protect
single market in consumer credit?

Does the requirement of an interpretation in conformity
with the aims — at the very least those of protecting the
consumer — of those directives mean that the court may
raise of its own motion defects in credit agreements, such
as the failure to include a written statement of the annual
percentage rate of charge or the clause providing for its
variation?

3. Must those directives be interpreted as meaning that the
court is required to favour the interpretation of national
law authorising it to uphold pleas of irregularity vitiating
the conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agree-
raised by the
those described above,
such as
ment,
the court's own motion, without any
consumer or of
time-limit,
in a dispute arising out of an action for
payment brought by the credit institution?

If not, must those directives be interpreted as meaning
that the court is required to favour the interpretation of
national law authorising it to set aside a national provi-
sion prohibiting the consumer or the court of its own
motion from raising a plea of irregularity affecting the
conclusion or renewal of a consumer credit agreement, at
the end of a time-limit derogating from the ordinary law,
inasmuch as it constitutes an exceptional restriction of the
consumer's right to bring an action and compromises the
effectiveness of consumer protection?

the laws,

regulations and administrative provisions of

(1) Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation
of
the
Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).
(2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending Direc-
tive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of
concerning
consumer credit (OJ 1990 L 61, p. 14).

the Member

States

the Protection of

the provisions of Annex III

— find that, by failing to take all appropriate measures to
prevent, abate and combat the substantial and prolonged
pollution of the Étang de Berre and by failing to take due
to the Athens
account of
Protocol of 17 May 1980 for
the
Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based
Sources (1) by amending the authorisation for discharges
of the substances referred to in Annex II to the Protocol
in consequence of its conclusion, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) and (3) of
the Protocol and Articles 4(1) and 8 of
the Barcelona
Convention of 16 February 1976 for the Protection of the
Mediterranean Sea
approved on
behalf of the Community by Council Decisions 77/585/
and 83/101/EEC (4) on 25 July 1977 and
EEC (3)
28 February 1983,
(formerly
the Treaty establishing the European
Article 228) of
Community;

and Article 300(7)

against Pollution (2),

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 3(c) of the Athens Protocol, the area to which
the Protocol applies includes saltwater marshes communicating
with the sea, of which the Étang de Berre is one. It therefore
follows from Article 6(1) of
the French
that
Republic must
and indirect discharges of
reduce direct
substances into that lake when those discharges give rise to
those
harmful
discharges. That involves an obligation as to the result to be
achieved.

and must prevent

the Protocol

combat

effects,

and

Action brought on 4 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-239/03)

(2003/C 184/41)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented

that

to arrive at

result. However,

The abatement of direct and indirect discharges of substances
into the Étang de Berre must be stringent. That stringency
requires a sizeable and lasting reduction in the quantity of
substances discharged, with a major and lasting positive effect
on the environment, and also applies to the method which the
State uses
the French
Republic has not abated the pollution from land-based sources
in the Étang de Berre in accordance with its obligations under
Article 6(1) of the Protocol, in conjunction with Articles 4(1)
and 8 of the Barcelona Convention of 16 February 1976 for
the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution. Since
1983, as the result of the operation of the hydroelectric power
station at Saint-Chamas, the lake has suffered substantial and
prolonged point-source land-based pollution, with considerable
negative effects on flora, fauna and amenities. While it is true
that there has been abatement of the pollution, the reduction
in discharges has been belated, erratic and, above all, extremely
limited. Finally, the measures taken by the public authorities
for the purpose of long-term pollution abatement in the Étang
de Berre have been limited in scope.

C 184/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Protocol, the discharge into the
lake of the substances referred to in Article 6(1) is subject to
two, cumulative conditions:
first, there must be a discharge
authorisation issued by the competent national authorities and,
secondly, that authorisation must take due account of all the
relevant provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. The French
Republic has failed to comply with either of those two condi-
tions.

(1) OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 3.
(2) Convention for the Protection of

the Mediterranean Sea against

Pollution (Barcelona Convention), OJ L 240 of 19.9.1977, p. 3.
(3) Council Decision of 25 July 1977 concluding the Convention for
the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the
Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean
Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (OJ L 240 of 19.09.1977,
p. 1).

(4) Council Decision of 28 February 1983 concluding the Protocol for
the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from

the protection of
land-based sources (OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour adminis-
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case
of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus

(Case C-242/03)

(2003/C 184/42)

the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus on the following question:

Justice of

Is Article 129c of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income
in the version applicable to the 2000 tax
tax, as amended,
year, which, subject to certain conditions and limits, grants tax
relief to taxpayers who are natural persons and acquire shares
representing cash contributions in fully-taxable resident capital
companies, compatible with the principle of the free move-
ment of capital within the European Community as laid down
the
by Article 56(1) of
the EC Treaty,
restrictions on that principle
alia by
Article 58(1)(a) of the EC Treaty?

taking account of

laid down inter

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-246/03)

(2003/C 184/43)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and,
in any event, to
notify to the Commission the laws,
regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or
the
resulting from action taken by the institutions of
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full
incor-
poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-247/03)

(2003/C 184/44)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis,
of its Legal Service.