Case C-302/03: Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal life, national implementing measure, protection of animals, zoo

C 213/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants plead that the Court erred in finding that the
damage which they alleged arose from the fact of not
managing to import ACP bananas. In truth, the appellants
were complaining that in 1999 and 2000 they had not
obtained certificates to import bananas from non-member
countries despite their right to do so under their reference
quantity based exclusively on imports of bananas from non-
member countries. The appellants submit that the Court failed
to take account of
their
application for damages.

their arguments in support of

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of
27 June 2003 in the case of Société Anonyme Glaxo-
SmithKline against Belgian State

(Case C-296/03)

(2003/C 213/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
8 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
Anonyme GlaxoSmithKline against Belgian State on the fol-
lowing question:

Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
further 90 days, referred to in the first subparagraph of
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) be
considered to be a strict time-limit precluding, upon expiry,
the adoption of any decision, even where an initial decision
adopted timeously has been annulled?

( 1) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.

2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
to comply with Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) relating
to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
by failing to have informed the Commission of any
such laws, regulations or administrative provisions, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

2.

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive was to be incorporated
into national law expired on 9 April 2002.

(1) OJ L 94 of 9.4.1999, p. 24.

Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-302/03)

(2003/C 213/36)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Van Beek and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

Action brought on 10 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-298/03)

(2003/C 213/35)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July

— find that, by failing to adopt

the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999
relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any
event, by failing to communicate the same to the
Commission the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/21

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Commission of the
European Communities against PROSECOM — Protecção,
Segurança e Comunicações, Lda

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
9 April 2002.

( 1) OJ L 94 of 9.4.1999, p. 24.

(Case C-304/03)

(2003/C 213/38)

Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-303/03)

(2003/C 213/37)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that, by failing to adopt

the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of- life
vehicles or, in any event, by failing to communicate the
same to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
21 April 2002.

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

An action against PROSECOM — Protecção, Segurança e
Comunicações, Lda. was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 July 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal
and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

to

the

the

pay

defendant

applicant
to
EUR 111 605,10 (one hundred and eleven thousand six
hundred and five euros and ten cents), composed of
EUR 88 276 by way of capital, and EUR 23 329,10 by
way of interest accrued between 15 November 1998 until
30 June 2003,
inclusive, at the rate of 5,50 % (until
31 December 2002) and 7,50 % (from 1 January 2003);

— order the defendant to pay EUR 18,14 (eighteen euros
and fourteen cents) per day as interest calculated at the
same rate from 1 July 2003, until full payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the general terms and conditions of the contract,
the signatories agreed, in the event that the total financial
contribution by the Commission should prove to be less than
the payment actually made, to return the difference forthwith
to the Commission. By failing to return forthwith the above-
mentioned amounts which were given to it by the Com-
mission, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under the
contract. The total amount of costs accepted by the defendant
found by the Commission after an audit was PTE 26 270 857,
so that
fixed at
PTE 13 135 428 (ECU 68 686). In view of the fact that the
total received by the defendant was ECU 156 962,
the
amount overpaid which must be returned by the defendant is
ECU 88 276. No payment has been made to date, so that the
defendant is still in debt for the full amount. In addition to the

the Commission’s

contribution was