Case C-441/03: Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, biotope, bird, environmental protection, protection of animal life

13.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/17

within Directive 78/686/EEC are at a disadvantage in Austria
because they must use the professional title ‘dentist’ there,
while they are in direct competition with ‘specialists in dental,
oral and maxillo-facial surgery’. Furthermore, nationals of
other Member States staying in Austria must be able to rely on
an unambiguous title. Otherwise uncertainty is created which
could harm all patients from the Community. Since a ‘specialist
in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ is regarded under the
contested Law as a ‘specialist’ and a ‘dentist’ is regarded as a
‘doctor’, it is clear that a specialist falling within Article 19b of
Directive 78/686/EEC does not practice under the same
conditions as a ‘dentist’.

the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 18(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC,
or has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of
Directive 92/43/EEC to comply with the directive;

— declare that Article 13(3) of the Natuurbeschermingswet
(law on the protection of nature) is contrary to Article 6(4)
of Directive 92/43/EEC;

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although the Commission can in principle accept the measures
which the Netherlands has proposed in order to remedy the
failure found by the Commission in its formal notice of default,
the Commission must
time the
find that at
Netherlands is still in default since the proposed measures have
not yet been adopted or brought into force.

the present

Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

(1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206 of 22 July 1992, p. 7.

(Case C-441/03)

(2003/C 304/25)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
15 October 2003 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, as agent.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 17 October
2003 in the case of Götz Leffler against Berlin Chemie
AG, a company incorporated under German law

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions in order to:

(Case C-443)

(2003/C 304/26)

— fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Council
Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), or in any event by failing
to inform the Commission of those provisions, and

— fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
in conjunction with
lands under Article 6(1),
Article 2(1) and Article 1(a),
(e) and (i), and
Articles 6(2), (3) and (4), 7, 11, 14(1) and (2), and
15 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora, (2) or in any event by failing to inform the
Commission thereof,

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 17 Octo-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Götz Leffler against
Berlin Chemie AG, a company incorporated under German
law on the following questions:

1. Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation (1) be construed as
meaning that, in the event of refusal by an addressee to
accept a document on the ground of failure to comply
with the language requirement laid down in Article 8(1),
it is possible for the sender to rectify that failure?