Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Case C-33/04
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, systems interconnection, telecommunications, telephone, universal service

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/13

The Commission claims that the agreement of 15 September
1999 to transfer the responsibility for the collection and
treatment of waste from the municipality of Mödling to
AbfallGmbH does not fall to be classified as an ‘internal
transfer’ within the administration of the municipality of
Mödling, as the municipality of Mödling ceased to exercise the
control over AbfallGmbH that it would have over its own
departments. The transfer of responsibility for the carrying out
of public services accordingly involves a public service contract
which was subject to the compulsory tender procedure.

(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-31/04)

(2004/C 71/20)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Janu-
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-32/04)

(2004/C 71/21)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001
amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC
defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for
the system of specific information relating to dangerous
preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European
Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relat-
ing to dangerous substances in implementation of
Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data
sheets) (1), or,
in any event, by failing to inform the
Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
information society (1), or in any event by failing to
communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 13 of that directive.

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed by the Directive for its transposition
into national law expired on 22 December 2002.

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
2002.

(1) OJ 2001 L 212, p. 24.

Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

Case C-33/04

(2004/C 71/22)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 71/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should declare that:

Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

— by failing to comply with the obligation to verify the
compliance of cost accounting systems by an independent
competent body and to publish a statement of compliance
for 1998 and 1999, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5) of
Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in
telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal
service and interoperability through application of the
principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (1);

— by failing in practice to apply correctly the measures
adopted for the purpose of implementing Article 18(1)
and (2) of Directive 98/10/EC as regards verification of
the compliance of the cost accounting system by the
national regulatory authority or another competent body,
independent of the telecommunications organisation and
approved by the national regulatory authority, and as
regards annual publication of a statement of compliance,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 18 of Directive 98/10/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
1998 on the application of open network provision
(ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for
telecommunications in a competitive environment (2).

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet adopted all the
measures necessary in order to ensure the full transposition
and implementation of Article 7(5) of Directive 97/33 as
regards:

— verification of the compliance of the cost accounting
system by the national regulatory authority or another
competent body;

— annual publication of a statement of compliance.

As regards Directive 98/10, verification of the compliance of
the cost accounting system of the operator Entreprise des
Postes et Télécommunications (EPT) has not yet taken place.
In addition, no statement concerning compliance has been
published.

(1) OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.
(2) OJ 1998 L 101, p. 24.

(Case C-34/04)

(2004/C 71/23)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by T. van Rijn and C. Diderich,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to withdraw the fishing licences
granted to the fishing vessels WIRON III and WIRON IV
those vessels to
following the definitive transfer of
Argentina, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Com-
munity system laying down rules for the minimum
information to be contained in fishing licences;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector
between the European Economic Community and the Argen-
tine Republic (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 2), the fishing vessels WIRON
III and WIRON IV, which flew the Netherlands flag and were
registered in the Netherlands, were transferred to Argentina.
The vessels were removed from the Netherlands register of
fishing vessels, transferred to Argentina and registered there in
the national shipping register. The Commission discovered
that the fishing licences granted to the vessels WIRON III and
WIRON IV had been used again for other vessels. Such conduct
is inconsistent with the obligation imposed on the Netherlands
under Article 5 of Regulation No 3690/93 to withdraw
the fishing licences of vessels which have been definitively
withdrawn from fishing activities. From the Community’s
point of view, the definitive transfer of a vessel to a non-
member country is equivalent to the definitive withdrawal of
that vessel from fishing activity.