Case C-331/03: Action brought on 28 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, metal waste, national implementing measure

C 213/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Huhtamaki Dourdan
SA

Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-315/03)

(2003/C 213/44)

An action against Huhtamaki Dourdan SA was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Giolito, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

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

1.

2.

to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 162 342,42 (One
hundred and sixty-two thousand three hundred and
forty-two euros and forty-two cents) corresponding to
EUR 151 433,47 in respect of the principal and to
EUR 10 808,95 in respect of accrued interest for delay
up to 6 June 2003;

to pay EUR 28,27 (Twenty-eight euros and twenty-seven
cents) per day in respect of interest accrued at the same
rate from 6 June 2003 until payment in full;

3.

to pay the costs of this case.

(Case C-322/03)

(2003/C 213/45)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

a)

find that Ireland has failed its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/63/EC of 21st June 1999 con-
cerning the Agreement on the organisation of working
time of seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners’
Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), or by
failing to ensure that management and labour have
introduced the necessary measures by agreement, and/or
by failing to inform the Commission thereof; and

b)

condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 30 June 2002.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 167, 02.07.1999, p. 33.

The court with jurisdiction in this case is the Court of Justice,
notwithstanding the wording of the arbitration clause since
that cannot have been intended to change or have the effect of
changing the division of jurisdiction between the Court of
Justice and the Court of First Instance as provided for by the
Treaty.

In refusing to produce the evidence of costs requested by the
Commission, the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation
under the contract concluded pursuant to the provisions of
the specific programme for research and development in the
field of industrial and materials technologies and is liable to
repay the amount of the advance to the Commission.

Action brought on 28 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-331/03)

(2003/C 213/46)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/25

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

1.

the necessary laws,
declare that, by failing to adopt
regulations and administrative provisions to comply with
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life
vehicles (1), or, in any event by not communicating those
provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired
on 21 April 2002.

( 1) OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

ties on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Marie-José Jonczy, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
regulations and administrative provisions to comply with
Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending
Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
businesses or parts of businesses (1), or, in any event by
not communicating those provisions to the Commission,
the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2.

order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Action brought on 30 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-333/03)

(2003/C 213/47)

The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired
on 17 July 2001.

An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-

(1) OJ No L 201, 17.7.1998, p. 88.