Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment)
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, disclosure of information, environmental protection, report, standardisation

C 85/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession
of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October
1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention
of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as follows:

of initiating a procedure for that purpose without having
shown that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28
EC and 30 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-
P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 5 February 2004, in which it:

‘matters relating to a contract’ do not cover the obligation which a
guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by
the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of
subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of
recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a
party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of
that contract.

(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which subjects
the marketing of
food products for sportsmen and women
lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States to
a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and of
initiating a procedure for that purpose without having shown
that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 5 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 February 2004

in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sports-
men and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in
other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)

(2004/C 85/14)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/
EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and
rationalising reports on the implementation of certain direc-
tives relating to the environment)

(2004/C 85/15)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.-F. Durand and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello
Stato) with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application
for a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation which
subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen and
women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member
States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and

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

In Case C-406/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: B. Stromsky) with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovitz) with
an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a
declaration that, by failing to communicate to it, within the

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/11

prescribed period, the reports in respect of the Bruxelles-
Capitale Region required under Council Directive 76/464/EEC
of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 3), Council Directive 78/659/
EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
protection or improvement in order to support fish life (OJ
1978 L 222, p. 1) and Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980
L 20, p. 43) as amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC of
23 December 1991 standardising and rationalising reports on
the implementation of certain Directives relating to the
environment (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48), the Kingdom of Belgium
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said directives, the
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for
the President of the Third Chamber, J. P. Puissochet (Rappor-
teur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February
2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission,
the
within the prescribed period,
Bruxelles-Capitale Region required under Article 2(1) of
Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 stan-
dardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of
certain Directives relating to the environment, the Kingdom of
Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

in respect of

the report

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— reverse the order of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities made on 23 April 2003;

— declare the respondent liable for the harm suffered by the
appellants as a result of the attack on 27 March 2002 at
the Park Hotel, Netanya (Israel);

— order the respondent, in respect of the harm suffered by

the appellants to pay the following amounts:

— to Lucien Zaoui, EUR 1 million in compensation for

non-material damage;

— to B. Zaoui, EUR 1.5 million, in compensation for

non-material damage;

— to D. Stain, née Zaoui:

— EUR 1 million in respect of physical injury;

— EUR 2 million in respect of non-material

damage;

— an amount to be settled in the course of

proceedings for material damage

(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

— order the respondent to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Appeal brought on 3 July 2003 by B. Zaoui, L. Zaoui and
D. Stain, née Zaoui, against the order made on 23 April
2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-73/03 between
B. Zaoui and Others and the Commission of the European
Communities

The unlawful conduct of the Commission, namely the grant of
funds to the Palestinian Authority, in total contradiction with
the fundamental values of
the Community, has directly
contributed to the harm suffered by the appellants as a result
of the attack carried out by a Palestinian terrorist in Netanya
(Israel), for which they now seek compensation.

(Case C-288/03 P)

(2004/C 85/16)

An appeal against the order made on 23 April 2003 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First
Chamber) in Case T-73/03 between B. Zaoui and Others and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 July 2003 by B. Zaoui, L. Zaoui and D. Stain, née Zaoui,
represented by J. A. Buchinger, advocat.

The application of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance was manifestly unlawful, since it was
by error of law and by distorting the clear sense of the pleas
put forward by the appellants that the Court of First Instance
held that the existence of a causal link was not established in
this case and that the application was manifestly lacking any
foundation in law:

— the Court of First Instance dismissed the application
brought at first instance by the appellants as manifestly
lacking any foundation in law, holding that one of the
conditions necessary for the Commission to incur non-
contractual liability, within the meaning of the second
paragraph of Article 288 EC, was not established in this