Case C-343/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, catch quota, conservation of fish stocks, fishery resources, fishing controls, fishing rights

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/5

— Article 6(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, in its
wording in force at the material
time, did not
distinguish between the various aid schemes so far
as concerned the obligation to check 5 % of the
‘animal’ aid applications during the retention period,
so that, contrary to the Commission’s contention,
the Portuguese authorities acted in conformity with
the provision in issue.

— by applying in this case Article 6(5) of Regulation
No 3887/92 as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2801/99, rather than the version in force at
the material
the Commission is applying
retrospectively a new provision, which is contrary
to the general principles of law common to the
Member States.

time,

— Breach of the obligation to provide reasons enshrined in
Article 253 of the EC Treaty: the Commission’s decision
does not indicate what aspect of the conduct of the
Portuguese authorities was contrary to Community law
nor which Community legislation was infringed thereby.
The decision therefore does not fulfil the obligation to
provide reasons. That requirement is stricter where at
issue is the adoption of measures which impose sanctions
on or entail adverse consequences,
in particular in
financial terms, for those to whom it is addressed, as in
the present case. In those circumstances, fulfilment of the
in order to
obligation to provide reasons is essential
protect the rights of defence of the person or body
affected by the adverse consequences flowing from the
measure.

(1) OJ 2003 L 124, p. 45.

— Error of assessment of the facts with regard to the
expenditure declared by the Portuguese authorities for
1999 concerning the premium for the maintenance of
the suckler cow herd:

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

— The alleged irregularities regarding the identification
of the animals, which the Commission claims to
have detected in checks carried out in holdings in
the Alentejo region in September 2000, are of
no relevance to the application of the flat-rate
corrections applied to expenditure in respect of
the 1999 financial year.
the
Portuguese Government takes the view that the
irregularities alleged by the Commission are irrel-
evant, since Portugal has complied and continues to
comply with the rules relating to the identification
of bovine animals.

In the alternative,

(Case C-343/03)

(2003/C 239/07)

An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that

— The Commission further alleges, as the basis for
applying the financial correction, that some animals
bore producer markings bearing an identification
number which was not that accorded by the com-
petent authorities, and considers that the practice
increases the risk that a premium might be paid
more than once in respect of the same animal.
Again in that respect the Commission erred in its
assessment of the relevant facts by failing to take
account of the actual circumstances in which the
said practice occurred.

— by failing to adopt detailed rules for the utilisation

of the quotas allocated to Denmark,

— by failing to ensure compliance with the EC pro-
visions on the conservation of fishery resources by
means of monitoring of fishing activity, appropriate
inspections of landings and registration of catches,
and criminal or administrative proceedings against
those responsible for overfishing,

C 239/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

— by failing to issue a provisional prohibition of
fishing from fishing vessels flying the Danish flag or
registered in Denmark when the quota allocated was
to be deemed to have been exhausted, and by failing
to inform the Commission when the halt to fishing
was introduced,

the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations
both under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/
83 (1), and under Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 (2);

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that by failing to implement Council Directive 77/
799/EEC (1) of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual
assistance by the competent authorities of the Member
States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as
the United
in the territory of Gibraltar,
amended,
Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty;

2)

order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

2.

order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Disregard of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/
83 and of Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2241/87.

The Danish Government has acknowledged that for certain
stocks the quotas allocated for the year 1998 were substantially
exceeded. The monitoring carried out of fishery activities and
the measures taken concerning the management and control of
those activities were in the Commission’s opinion inadequate.

The Danish authorities moreover in certain cases omitted to
bring criminal proceedings agains the persons responsible for
non-compliance with the rules on control and conservation.

( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
establishing a Community system for the conservation and
management of fishery resources, OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1.
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
lishing certain control measures for fishing activities, OJ L 207 of
29.7.1987, p. 1.

Directive 77/799/EEC, as amended, was to be implemented by
the Member States not later than 1 January 1981 as regards
value added tax (by virtue of Directive 79/1070/EEC (2)) and
1 January 1993 as regards excise duties (by virtue of Directive
92/12/EEC (3)).

Contrary to the view taken by the United Kingdom, the
Commission maintains
as
amended, applies to Gibraltar and that by failing to implement
the directive in this territory the United Kingdom has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

that Directive 77/799/EEC,

(1) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.
(2) of 6 December 1979 amending Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ L 331,

27.12.1979, p. 8).

(3) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
to excise duty and on the holding, movement and

subject
monitoring of such products (OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).

Action brought on 7 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Appeal brought on 21 August 2003 (facsimile received on
16 August 2003) by El Corte Inglés, SA against the order
delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case T-63/03 El Corte Inglés
SA v OHIM, the other party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio Yvonne S.r.l.

(Case C-349/03)

(2003/C 239/08)

(Case C-361/03 P)

(2003/C 239/09)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 7 August 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
R. Lyal, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

An appeal against the order delivered on 8 May 2003 in Case
T-63/03 El Corte Inglés SA v OHIM, the other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal being: Calzaturificio
Yvonne S.r.l., was brought before the Court of Justice of the