Case C-115/04: Action brought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, insurance company, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings, liquidation

C 94/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

2. Is it contrary to the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC of 19
December of 1978, and in particular Article 4 thereof, for a
provision of national law to require that for the spouse of
an agricultural worker
security
scheme the worker must prove that the income derived
from the activity covered by the Agricultural Workers'
Special Social Security Scheme is greater than that of his or
her spouse, so that,
there is a
presumption that that income is less?

is not so proven,

to join another

social

it

if

(1) OJ L 6 of 10.01.1979, p. 24.

Action brought on 4 March 2004 by the Commission of
the Republic of
the European Communities against

Finland

(Case C-115/04)

(2004/C 94/72)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by E. Traversa and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Directive 2001/17/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the
reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings, 1
since it has not brought into force the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
directive, or at least has not informed the Commission of
them;

2. Order Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 20 April 2003.

(1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.

Action brought on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the European Parlia-
ment and the Council of the European Union

Case C-122/04

(2004/C 94/73)

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 5 March 2004 by the Commis-

the European Communities,

represented by C.-F.
sion of
Durand and M. van Beek, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

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

— annul Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of
the Council of 17
the European Parliament and of
forests and
November 2003 concerning monitoring of
in the Community (Forest
environmental
interactions
Focus) (1),
in so far as it makes the adoption of imple-
menting measures for the Forest Focus programme subject
to the regulatory procedure laid down in Article 5 of
Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 (2);

— maintain the effects of the above regulation until its amend-
ment, which should be carried out as soon as possible after
the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested provision is in contravention of Article 2 of
Council Decision 1999/468/EC, the second comitology deci-
sion, which sets out the criteria governing the choice of one or
other type of committee (management, regulatory or advisory),
with a view to achieving greater consistency and predictability.
The criteria laid down by that provision have not been
observed in this case. Unless it can be shown that the imple-
menting measures envisaged are not management measures for
a programme, only the management procedure or, if appro-
priate, the advisory procedure are generally applicable for the
implementation of Community programmes.

the adoption of

In this case, the implementing measures to be taken pursuant
to the Forest Focus regulation are management measures for an
action programme with only limited budgetary implications.
On that ground,
the Community legislature's choice was
confined to either a management committee or an advisory
committee, to the exclusion of a regulatory committee. The
contested provision makes
implementing
measures for the Forest Focus programme subject to the regula-
tory procedure. Where the legislature derogates from the
typology prescribed by Article 2 of the second comitology deci-
sion, it must include in the act a statement of reasons which,
first, is accurate and consistent with the facts of the case and,
second, adequately explains the particular reasons why it is
appropriate to depart from the fixed criteria. The European
Parliament and the Council have not fulfilled their obligations
to identify the specific features of the present case and to
explain the particular reasons justifying the need to use the
regulatory procedure.

(1) OJ L 324, p.1.
(2) OJ L 184, p. 23, decision laying down the procedures for
implementing powers conferred on the

the exercise of
Commission.