Case C-342/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), cannery, import, sea fish, tariff quota

20.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/13

Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-340/03)

(2003/C 226/23)

(Case C-341/03)

(2003/C 226/24)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by J.-C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana, members of
the legal
the European
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

the Commission of

service of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

find that, by failing fully and correctly to implement the
following provisions of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of
12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and
in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in
agriculture (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Treaty:

a)

the definition contained in Article 2(a) of
the
Directive, in the Bundesland Steiermark (exceptions
for small sewage treatment plants),

b) Article 6(b) concerning the information to be regu-
larly provided to users under Annex II A, in Kärnten,

c) Article 9 in conjunction with Annexes II A, II B and
II C in Vorarlberg and in conjunction with Annex II C
in Kärnten and in Steiermark, and

d)

does

small

installations,
provide),

the requirement to keep a record in accordance with
Article 10 in Kärnten (paragraph 1(a) as regards the
for which the
exemption of
Directive
Steiermark
in
(paragraph 1(b) and (c) as regards the composition
and properties of the sludge and the type of treat-
ment) and Vorarlberg (paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) as
regards quantities of sludge, the composition and
properties of the sludge and the type of treatment),

not

2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by H. Michard, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

a)

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguard-
ing the supplementary pension rights of employed and
self-employed persons moving within the Community (1),
and in any event by failing to inform the Commission
thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

b) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Under the third paragraph of Article 249 (3) EC, directives
are binding, on the Member States as to the result to be
achieved, but leave to the national authorities the choice of
form and methods.

2.

In this case, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 98/49/EC of
29 June 1998 provides that Member States are to bring
into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions necessary to comply with the directive not later than
36 months following the date of its entry into force. The
directive was brought into force on the day of its publica-
tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities
(25 July 1998) and should therefore have been transposed
into national law by 27 January 2001. Under Article 10(2)
of
the directive Member States were to inform the
Commission of the measures of transposition adopted by
25 January 2002.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46.

The Austrian Republic was to implement Directive 86/278/EEC
by the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 January
1995.

Although that time-limit has passed, certain provisions of that
directive have not been fully and correctly implemented in the
Bundesländer of Kärnten, Steiermark and Vorarlberg.

Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-342/03)

(2003/C 226/25)

(1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.

An action against the Council of the European Union was
the European
brought before the Court of

Justice of

C 226/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2003

Communities on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

— Infringement of Article 253 EC (failure to state reasons),
on the ground that the contested regulation is not based
on a technical study showing why it is necessary;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Misuse of powers, in that the tariff quota has been allo-
cated arbitrarily between the countries benefitting from it.

— annul Council Regulation No 975/2003 (1) of 5 June
2003 opening and providing for the administration of a
tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN
codes 16041411, 16041418 and 16042070;

(1) OJ L 141, 7.6.2003, p. 1.

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The Kingdom of Spain submits that Regulation No 975/2003
infringes Community law for the following reasons:

— Breach of the principle of Community preference, given
that measures such as those adopted by the contested
regulation are appropriate only where Community pro-
duction is inadequate, which has not been established. The
Spanish tuna canning industry is particularly prejudiced
by this regulation;

— Distortion of competition in the market: owing to the fact
that a product has been put onto the market on more
advantageous conditions than those laid down in the gen-
eral tariff arrangements may give rise to imbalances in the
market concerned, with negative economic consequences;

— Procedural irregularities in that the contested regulation is
not based on any technical study showing why it is nee-
ded. Nor is Community production of canned tuna inade-
quate and such as to provide grounds justifying the
regulation;

— Infringement of Article 12 of the EC-ACP Partnership
Agreement, since the ACP States were not informed of
the adoption of a measure affecting them;

— Infringement of the preferential agreements with the ACP
and GSP-Drugs (Generalised System of Preferences —
Drugs) States, since the tariff quota to be allocated pur-
suant to the measures adopted in the contested regulation
will render ineffective the preferential regimes referred to
by allowing canned tuna from industrially developed
countries to compete in the Community market with
that from ACP and GSP-Drugs States;

— Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since
investments made by Community traders in the ACP and
GSP-Drugs States will be affected, account being taken of
the conditions for market access for products originating
in those countries;

Finland

(Case C-344/03)

(2003/C 226/26)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by G. Valero Jordana and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
conservation of wild birds (1), as amended by the 1994
Act of Accession, inasmuch as the Republic of Finland has
not applied the derogation laid down in Article 9(1) of the
directive in accordance with the criteria laid down therein,
since it has not indicated that the conditions for a deroga-
tion under that provision are fulfilled in the case of spring
hunting of certain water birds in mainland Finland and the
district of Åland, as regards in particular the application of
the criteria ‘no other satisfactory solution’ and ‘small num-
bers’ with respect especially to the species eider (Somateria
mollissima), golden-eye (Bucephala clangula), red-breasted
merganser (Mergus serrator), goosander (Mergus mergan-
ser), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and tufted duck (Aythya
fuligula), and

2. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the ‘no other satisfactory solu-
tion’ criterion in the directive is not satisfied if autumn hunting
of the same species is possible, albeit in smaller numbers and
possibly in more difficult conditions from the hunter's point of
view or in different hunting locations. The Commission con-
siders that the ‘no other satisfactory solution’ requirement is to
be assessed in a concrete and specific manner, not abstractly
and at a general level. Local circumstances must be taken into
account in the assessment.