Action brought on 17 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands Case C-76/04
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, insurance company, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings, liquidation

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/25

2. Can the declarant still invoke the guarantees contained in
Article 222 of the Community Customs Code if Articles
204(1) and 215(3) thereof are applicable in the case where
the declarant is faced with non-discharge of the T1 docu-
ments issued by him as a result of prior fraudulent with-
from transit of non-Community goods (in casu,
drawal
textile goods), in which the declarant was uninvolved, or, in
other words,
is Article 222 of the Community Customs
Code, which, inter alia, refers to the general rule of Article
203 of that Code – for the application of which Article 204
that Code is a more specific provision – linked for
of
purposes of application with Articles 204(1) and 215(3) of
the Community Customs Code?

(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1

Action brought on 17 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

Case C-76/04

(2004/C 94/53)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 February 2004 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by E. Traversa and W. Wils, acting
as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 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 or, in any event, by
failing to notify the Commission of those provisions, the
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

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

1. declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 2(4) of Directive 96/61/EC of 24
September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention
and control, (1) under Article 9(3)
thereof, under
Annex IV, and under Article 1 in conjunction with Sections
1.1 and 6.6 of Annex I, in that:

to (5)

(a) the definition of ‘existing installation’ under Article 2(4)
has not been fully transposed into federal law (Gewer-
beordnung 1994 (Industrial Code 1994),

(b) the requirements

relating to permit conditions laid
have not been fully
down in Article 9(4)
implemented in federal
legislation (Gewerbeordnung
1994) and those laid down in Article 9(3) to (5) have
not been fully implemented in the legislation of the
(NÖ Elektrizitätswesengesetz
Land Niederösterreich
2001 (Lower Austria Electricity Act 2001),

(c) Annex IV has not been fully implemented in federal
legislation (Gewerbeordnung 1994) and in the legisla-
tion of the Land Niederösterreich (NÖ Elektrizitätswe-
sengesetz 2001),

(d) the Directive has not been implemented in federal legis-
lation and the legislation of the Land Salzburg, nor fully
implemented in the legislation of the Land Burgenland
as
(Burgenländisches Elektrizitätswesengesetz 1999),
regards
referred to in
Section 1.1 of Annex I,

the combustion installations

(e) the Directive has not been implemented, as regards the
installations for intensive rearing referred to in Section
6.6 of Annex I,
in the legislation of the Länder of
Burgenland, Salzburg and Tirol;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Although the time-limit for implementation of the Directive
expired on 30 October 1999, the Republic of Austria has still
not implemented at all, or has implemented only inadequately,
certain of its provisions (Art 2(4), Article 9(3) to (5), Annex IV
and Article 1 in conjunction with Sections 1.1 and 6.6 of
Annex I).

Pleas in law and main arguments:

(1) OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.

The period prescribed for implementation of
expired on 20 April 2003.

the Directive

(1) OJ 2001 L 110, p. 28.

Action brought on 18 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-78/04)

(2004/C 94/54)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the European Communities on 18
the Court of
February 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Prof. Dr. U. Wölker and M. Konstanti-
nidis, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

Appeal brought on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading
Company against the judgment delivered on 17 December
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-146/01 between
DLD Trading Company and the Council of the European
Union, supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commis-
sion of the European Communities and the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-80/04 P)

(2004/C 94/55)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
in Case T-146/01 between DLD
Trading Company and the Council of the European Union,
supported by the Republic of Austria, the Commission of the
European Communities and the Republic of Finland, was