Case C-66/04: Action brought on 16 February 2004 by the United Kingdom against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), consumer protection, flavouring, food additive, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, health policy, smoked product

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/21

— to order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Article 5(3) of the Directive, concerning the prior information
of the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiolo-
gical emergency, requires that
information be
communicated to this population without any request being
made.

the relevant

The circumstances that gave rise to the Commission's inquires
(repair operations of the nuclear submarine ‘Tireless’) high-
lighted that no prior information had been communicated in
the past to the Gibraltar population likely to be affected in the
event of a radiological emergency. The mere public availability
of the Gibraltar Public Safety Scheme (GIBPUBSAFE)
in the
public library cannot be considered to meet the requirements
of Article 5(3) of the Directive, which requires active communi-
cation of such information.

(1) OJ 1989 L 357, p. 31

Action brought on 16 February 2004 by the United
Kingdom against the European Parliament and the Council
of the European Union

(Case C-66/04)

(2004/C 94/44)

An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 16 February 2004 by the
United Kingdom, represented by Rosemary Caudwell, acting as
agent; Lord Goldsmith QC, Her Majesty's Attorney-General;
Nicholas Paines QC; and Tim Ward, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1) declare that Regulation (EC) No. 2065/2003 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003
on smoke flavourings used or intended for use in or on
foods (1) is invalid;

2) order the European Parliament and the Council of the Euro-

pean Union to pay the United Kingdom's costs.

does not harmonise national law, but instead sets up a proce-
dure at Community level
for the authorisation of smoke
flavourings in foods; it requires that such smoke flavourings
may only be placed on the market if authorised by further
Regulations to be adopted by the Commission on the basis of
the European Food Safety Authority (‘the
an opinion of
Authority’) as to their safety.

Those provisions are at the heart of the Regulation; it does not
establish any harmonised standards in national law at all, but
purports to entrust the task of establishing a list of authorised
smoke flavourings
entirely to the Commission and the
Authority.

that

the legislative power
The United Kingdom submits
conferred by Article 95 EC is a power to harmonise national
laws;
it is not a power to set up Community bodies or to
confer tasks upon such bodies, nor to set up procedures under
which lists of approved products are drawn up by the Commis-
sion on the basis of an evaluation by a Community agency.
Conferring tasks upon Community bodies or upon the
Commission is a matter outside the scope of national law, and
doing so cannot be described as harmonising national
law
within the meaning of Article 95.

The provisions of
the Regulation therefore fall outside the
power of harmonisation conferred on the Parliament and
Council by Article 95 and the only appropriate legal basis for
such a measure could be Article 308 EC.

(1) OJ L 309, 26.11.2003, p. 1 - 8

Action brought on 13 February 2004 by the Commission
the Hellenic
of

against

the European Communities
Republic

(Case C-67/04)

(2004/C 94/45)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstantinidis,
of its Legal Service.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Commission claims that the Court should:

The contested Regulation was adopted on the basis of Article
95 EC, which empowers the Parliament and the Council to
adopt measures for the approximation of the provisions laid
down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member
States which have as their object the establishment and func-
tioning of the internal market.

The United Kingdom does not object to the substantive content
of the Regulation, but submits that Article 95 EC does not
provide a proper legal basis for its adoption. The Regulation

necessary

— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to
the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
Directive
provisions
2001/80/EC (1) of
the
Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions
of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion
plants, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

the European Parliament and of

comply

with

to

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.