Case C-401/03: Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, Structural Funds, action for annulment (EU), co-financing, development aid, eligible region, regional aid, structural expenditure

13.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/9

No 2307/97 of 18 November 1997 (OJ 1997 L 325,
p. 1), and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the
implementation of Regulation No 338/97 (OJ 2001 L 250,
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Articles 2(w) and 8(3)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/
97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild
fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2307/97 of 18 November
1997 are to be interpreted as meaning that the animals referred
to in Annex A to that regulation but which have been stuffed
fall within the definition of ‘worked specimens’ for the purposes
of those provisions.

2. Article 8(3)(b) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
Regulation No 2307/97, is to be interpreted as meaning that
receiving specimens as a gift or inheriting them, and killing
animals and then taking them into one’s possession, makes
them ‘acquired’ within the meaning of that provision. It is not
necessary that the person who acquired the specimen more than
50 years previously be the present owner.

3. Notwithstanding the provision in the second paragraph of
Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the
implementation of Regulation No 338/97, Article 8(3)(b) of
the latter regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the
management authority of the Member State concerned must
have been able to ascertain that the specimen in question was
acquired in accordance with the conditions laid down in
Article 2(w) of Regulation No 338/97, as amended by
Regulation No 2307/97.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of
Gaye Gürol against Landesamt
für Ausbildungsförderung
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

1. Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
of the EEC/Turkey Association Council have direct effect
in the domestic legal systems of Member States of the
European Community, so that Turkish children residing
legally in a Member State of the Community with their
parents who are or have been legally employed in that
Member State, and who have the same qualifications as
the children of nationals of that Member State, are entitled
to equal access to general education, apprenticeship and
vocational training?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Do Turkish children still qualify as ‘residing legally with
their parents’ if they establish and maintain their own
principal residence at the place of their university edu-
cation and are registered with only a subsidiary residence
at their parents’ address?

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Does the first sentence of Article 9 of Decision No 1/80
of the EEC/Turkey Association Council confer on the
beneficiaries of that provision entitlement not only to
equal access to educational facilities but also to equal
access to State benefits granted by the Member State with
the aim of
facilitating participation in education or
training, or is Article 9 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/
Turkey Association Council to be interpreted as reserving
to Member States the possibility of making the grant of
social benefits in the area of education subject to other
conditions or of limiting those benefits?

4.

If Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative:

Does that also apply to a university education in the
Turkish homeland for the beneficiaries?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 31 July
2003 in the administrative law case of Gaye Gürol
against Landesamt für Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-
Westfalen

Action brought on 25 September 2003 by the Italian
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-374/03)

(2003/C 304/13)

(Case C-401/03)

(2003/C 304/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 31 July
2003, received at the Court Registry on 8 September 2003,

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent and
Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.

C 304/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.12.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003 (1) of
27 June 2003, published in the Official Journal of the
European Union L 160 of 28 June 2003, p. 48, amending
Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (2) as regards the rules of
eligibility for co-financing by the Structural Funds for
procedural irregularities, as set out at points 52 to 59 of
Section I of the application;

— in the alternative, annul Article 2(a) in so far as it refers
to Rule 1, points 1.2, 2.1 and 2.3 and Rule 1, points 1.2,
2.1 and 2.3 of the annex on the basis of the pleas on the
merits as set out at points 60 to 93 of Section II and
points 94 to 102 of Section III of the application;

— annul all related and ancillary measures;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003
should be annulled on the following grounds:

A. Grounds relating to the infringement of the ‘committee
laid down by Council Regulation (EC)

procedure’
No 1260/1999 ‘the general regulation’:

— infringement of essential procedural requirement
(Article 230 EC); infringement of Article 47(3) of
the general regulation (committees); failure to satisfy
the requirements for the adoption of the regulation.

— infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity

and inadequate statement of reasons;

— infringement of the principle of legitimate expec-

tations; inconsistency.

C. Misuse of powers

(1) OJ 2003 L 160 of 28.06.2003, p. 3.
(2) OJ 2000 L 242 of 27.09.2000, p. 39.
(3) OJ 1999 L 161 of 26.06.1999, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of that Court of 26 September 2003 in the case
of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S and Bilka
Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and Michael
Due Nielsen

(Case C-402/03)

(2003/C 304/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Vestre Landsret
(Western Regional Court) of 26 September 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 29 September 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Skov Æg against Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/
S and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S against Jette Mikkelsen and
Michael Due Nielsen on the following questions:

Q u e s t i o n 1

Does Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
the Member States concerning liability for
provisions of
defective products (1) preclude a statutory system under which
an intermediary bears unlimited responsibility for the pro-
ducer’s liability under the Directive?

B.

Pleas on the merits

Q u e s t i o n 2

— infringement of essential procedural requirements:

insufficient and inconsistent statement of reasons;

— infringement of Article 9(j) of Regulation (EC) No

1260/1999 (3): definition of operation;

Does the abovementioned Council Directive preclude a system
under which the intermediary bears, in accordance with case-
law, unlimited responsibility for the producer’s fault-based
liability established in case-law in respect of
liability for
defective products resulting in personal injury or damage to
consumers’ property?

— further infringement of Article 9 and of Articles 8

and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999;

Q u e s t i o n 3

With reference to:

— infringement of the principle of sound financial

management;

1.

The Council of Ministers minutes in BEUC-News, Legal
Supplement 12 November/December 1985, pages 20
and 21, paragraph 2 of which states: