Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-182/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l'Aménagement du territoire et de l'Environnement, interveners: Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chasseurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier d'eau (Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations)
Date: 2003-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, bird, hunting, hunting regulations, interpretation of the law

29.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

in Case C-91/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Hannl + Hofstetter
Internationale Spedition GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion
für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (1)

(Community Customs Code — Customs debt on importation
— Charging of interest on arrears)

(2003/C 289/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-91/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
for a preliminary
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale Spedition GmbH and Fi-
nanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-
land, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92
(OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003,
in which it has ruled:

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code and Commission Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions
the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 must be
for
interpreted as not precluding legislation which provides for an increase
in duty in the event of the incurrence of a customs debt under
Articles 202 to 205 or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the
event of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code,
corresponding to the amount which would have been incurred as
interest on arrears for the period between the incurrence of the customs
debt and the entry in the accounts or, in the case of subsequent
recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code, between the date
when the customs debt originally entered in the accounts was due and
the subsequent entry in the accounts of that debt, provided that the
rate of interest is determined under conditions which are comparable
to those applicable under national law to infringements of the same
nature and gravity and which make the penalty effective, proportionate
and dissuasive. It is for the national court to determine whether the
rate of increase at issue in the main proceedings is consistent with
those principles.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

in Case C-182/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux
and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Aménage-
ment du territoire et de l’Environnement, interveners:
Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chas-
seurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier
d’eau (1)

(Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations)

(2003/C 289/13)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-182/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Ligue pour
la protection des oiseaux and Others and Premier ministre,
Ministre de l’Aménagement du territoire et de l’Environnement,
interveners: Union nationale des fédérations départementales
de chasseurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier
d’eau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and
N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
eral; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment
on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds permits a Member
State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for
hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives set
out in Article 7(4) of that directive.

2. Article 9 of Directive 79/409 must be interpreted as allowing
hunting to be authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) where:

— there is no other satisfactory solution. That condition
would not be met, inter alia, if the sole purpose of the
derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting
periods for certain species of birds in territories which they
already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in
accordance with Article 7 of Directive 79/409;

C 289/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.11.2003

— it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and

on a selective basis;

— it applies only to certain birds in small numbers;

gations under Article 3 of that directive, the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
the
Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:

— mention is made of:

(a)

the species which are subject to the derogations;

(b)

(c)

(d)

the means, arrangements or methods authorised for
capture or killing;

the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time
and place under which such derogations may be
granted;

the authority empowered to declare that the required
conditions obtain and to decide what means,
arrangements or methods may be used, within what
limits and by whom;

(e)

the controls which will be carried out.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary to comply with Commission
Directive 2000/21/EC of 25 April 2000 concerning the list
of Community legislation referred to in the fifth indent of
Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of
that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

in Case C-325/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

in Case C-307/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose Directive 98/81/EC)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/21/EC — Labelling of dangerous substances — Failure
to transpose)

(2003/C 289/15)

(Language of the case: French)

(2003/C 289/14)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-307/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and D. Petrausch): Application for a declaration that, by failing
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC
of 25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legislation
referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council
Directive 67/548/EEC (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70), or in any
event not immediately informing the Commission of those
provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-

In Case C-325/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti) v Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: P. Gramegna): Application for a declar-
ation that, by transposing only part of Article 1 of and
Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October
1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use
of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330,
p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 2 of
the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:

that directive,