Case C-406/03: Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2003-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, stratospheric pollutant

29.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/13

3.

If either of the previous two questions is answered in the
affirmative, does Community law preclude a legal costs
scheme such as that in issue, under which, in principle,
only a limited contribution is made towards legal costs
where a citizen is successful
in proceedings brought
before the national courts for breach of Community law
by a Member State?

Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-406/03)

(2003/C 289/25)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by U. Wölker and M. Shotter, acting as agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to provide the reports referred to
in Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
No. 2037/2000 (1) on substances that deplete the ozone
layer, and by failing, in accordance with Article 17(2) of
the said Regulation, to take all precautionary measures
practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
bromide and to define the minimum qualification require-
ments for the personnel involved, Ireland has failed to
its obligations under Articles 16(5), 16(6), 17(1)
fulfil
and 17(2) of the said Regulation;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission did not, by the required date of 31 December
2001, receive from Ireland information on the quantities of
ozone depleting substances recovered, reclaimed, recycled and
destroyed. Nor did it receive by that date any of the other
detailed information required to be reported to it by virtue of
Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of the Regulation. In the
absence of this information, the Commission is concerned that
Ireland’s efforts to curb ozone depleting substances may fall
short of what is required by the Regulation, as the Commission
has been deprived of a means of verifying compliance. It is

also prevented from evaluating the measures taken by Ireland
as part of its overall evaluation with a view to proposing,
as appropriate, Community measures regarding minimum
qualification requirements.

With regard to Article 17(2) of the Regulation, the Commission
considers that Ireland has equally failed in its obligations. It
has not defined the minimum qualification requirements
for personnel involved in taking all precautionary measures
practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
bromide from fumigation installations and operations in which
methyl bromide is used. Nor,
for that matter, does the
Commission have any information indicating that Ireland has
taken the necessary precautionary measures.

(1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
Koblenz by order of that Court of 16 September 2003 in
the matter concerning the companies register relating to
SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft

(Case C-411/03)

(2003/C 289/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Koblenz
(Regional Court, Koblenz) of 16 September 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 2 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the matter concerning the companies register relating to
SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft on the following question:

Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it
is contrary to freedom of establishment for companies if a
foreign European company is refused registration of
its
proposed merger with a German company in the German
register of companies under paragraphs 16 et seq. of the
Umwandlungsgesetz (Law on transformations), on the ground
that paragraph 1 (1)(1) of that law provides only for transform-
ation of legal entities established in Germany?