Case C-344/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2003-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, environmental protection, hunting regulations

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.

20.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/15

According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,

p. 1.

Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-345/03)

(2003/C 226/27)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by not adopting all 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 vehi-
cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)

(2003/C 226/28)

By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-131/02: Commission of
the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.

(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)

(2003/C 226/29)

By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the European
register of Case C-393/02: Commission of
Communities v Portuguese Republic.

(1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.

Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)

(2003/C 226/30)

By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-407/02: Commission of
the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.

(1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)

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

(2003/C 226/31)

By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-10/03: Commission of
the European
Communities v Republic of Finland.

(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.