Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 January 2004 in Case C-209/02: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Directive 92/43/EEC — Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Habitat of the corncrake — "Wörschacher Moos" special protection area)
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, protected area, protection of animal life, tourist infrastructure, wildlife

C 71/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 5 February 2004

in Case C-157/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Oberster Gerichtshof ): Rieser Internationale
Transporte GmbH v Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-
Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag) (1)

(Carriage of goods by road — Tolls — Brenner motorway —
Prohibition of discrimination — Discrimination on grounds
of the nationality of the haulier or of the origin or destination
of the vehicle)

(2004/C 71/05)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-157/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Rieser Internationale Transporte GmbH and Autobahnen- und
Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-AG (Asfinag), on the interpret-
ation of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on
the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles
used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges
for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32)
and Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods
vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ 1999 L 187,
p. 42), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. When contracts are concluded with road users, the provisions of
a directive capable of having direct effect may be relied upon
against a legal person governed by private law where the State
has entrusted to that legal person the task of levying tolls for
the use of public road networks and where it has direct or
indirect control of that legal person.

2. Articles 7(b) of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October
1993 on the application by Member States of taxes on certain
vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and
charges for the use of certain infrastructures and 7(4) of
Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods
certain infrastructures may, but
vehicles

the use of

for

Articles 7(h) of Directive 93/89 and 7(9) of Directive 1999/
62 may not, be relied upon by individuals against State
authorities so far as concerns the calculating of tolls for vehicles
having a laden weight of at least 12 tonnes used for the carriage
of goods for the full itinerary of the Austrian Brenner motorway
when the Directives have not been transposed, or have been
imperfectly transposed, into domestic law.

3. Austrian hauliers, like the hauliers of the other Member States,
may rely on Articles 7(b) of Directive 93/89 and 7(4) of
Directive 1999/62 in order to claim that because of the
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary on the Austrian Brenner
motorway they suffer discrimination in comparison with road
users using parts only of the itinerary on that motorway.

4.

The judgment in Case C-21/94 Parliament v Council must be
interpreted as preserving the effects of Directive 93/89 until
20 July 1999, the date on which Directive 1999/62 entered
into force.

5. During the period from 20 July 1999 to 1 July 2000, the
Member States were required to refrain from taking any
measures liable gravely to jeopardise the attainment of the result
prescribed by Directive 1999/62 but individuals could not rely
on that Directive against the Member States before national
courts in order to have a pre-existing national rule incompatible
with the Directive disapplied.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 29 January 2004

in Case C-209/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Republic of Austria (1)

(Directive 92/43/EEC — Failure of a Member State to fulfil
obligations — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
fauna and flora — Habitat of the corncrake — ‘Wörschacher
Moos’ special protection area)

(2004/C 71/06)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-209/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: J.C. Schieferer), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, v Republic of Austria (Agent: C. Pesendorfer), with an
address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a declar-
ation that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/5

course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria
despite a negative assessment of the implications for the
habitat of the corncrake (crex crex) in the special protection
area, within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), situated in that district, the Republic of
Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3)
and (4), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf
course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria
despite a negative assessment of its implications for the habitat
of the corncrake (crex crex) in the ‘Wörschacher Moos’ special
protection area situated in that district and classified as provided
for in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Austria
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and (4), in
conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

with an address for service in Luxembourg, v United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji):
Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic
safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
and the general public against
the dangers arising from
ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) in its whole territory,
or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
its obligations under that
ern Ireland has failed to fulfil
directive,
composed of:
the Court
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:

(Fourth Chamber),

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down
basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
radiation in its whole territory, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 29 January 2004

in Case C-218/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and
the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
radiation — Failure to transpose in whole territory)

(2004/C 71/07)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-218/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: initially T.F. Cusack, and, subsequently, X. Lewis),

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’
Court, Bitonto by order of that court of 21 November
2003 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd
Adriatico Assicurazioni

(Case C-509/03)

(2004/C 71/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,
Bitonto of 21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 4 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni. The
Magistrates’ Court, Bitonto asks the Court to give a ruling on
the following questions:

1. Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale (Regional Administrative Court), Lazio (Rome)
of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
full, constitute infringements of Community law,
in
particular of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC?