Case C-108/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia by order of that Court of 19 January 2004 in the case of Divina Cortiñas Yáñez against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, interpretation of the law, social security

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/31

Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Belgium

(Case C-106/04)

(2004/C 94/69)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

1. declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions
of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion
plants (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them
to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, as far the
Flemish Region is concerned, has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 18 of that directive.

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

which suggest to the purchaser that the product or its ingre-
dients have been obtained in accordance with the rules on
organic production?

2. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/1991 of 24 June
supplemented by Council Regulation (EC) No
1991,
1804/1999 of 19 July 1999, on organic production of agri-
cultural products and indications referring thereto on agri-
cultural products and foodstuffs necessarily reserve,
in all
Member States, the terms ‘Biológico’ (biological) and ‘Ecoló-
(ecological) and their derivatives ‘Bio’ and ‘Eco’ for
gico’
products which have been obtained in accordance with the
rules laid down in respect of organic production in that
regulation?

3. Does Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/1991
of 24 June 1991, supplemented by Council Regulation (EC)
No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999, on organic production of
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
agricultural products and foodstuffs reserve, in Spanish, only
the term ‘Ecológico’ and its derivative ‘Eco’ for products
which have been obtained in accordance with the rules laid
down in respect of organic production in the regulation, so
that it may not be contrary to European law to use the term
‘Biológico’ and its derivative ‘Bio’
in Spain for on-organic
products, if, through use, that term and its derivative have
become a generic term and derivative, because in Spain they
do not designate foodstuffs with particular characteristics
connected with organic production methods?

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 198 of 22.07.1991, p. 1.
(2) OL L 222 of 24.08.1999, p. 1.

The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive
expired on 27 November 2002.

(1) OJ L 309 of 27.11.2001, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Supremo Chamber For Administrative Proceedings Fourth
Section by order of that Court of 1 December 2003 in the
proceedings brought by Comité Andaluz de Agricultura
Ecológica against Administración del Estado, supported by
Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica

(Case C-107/04)

(2004/C 94/70)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo Chamber
For Administrative Proceedings Fourth Section (Spain) of 1
December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 1 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica against Administra-
ción del Estado, supported by Comité Aragonés de Agricultura
Ecológica on the following questions:

1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/1991 of 24 June
1991 (1), supplemented by Council Regulation (EC) No
1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 (2), on organic production of
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
agricultural products and foodstuffs regard, in all Member
(biological) and ‘Ecológico’
States,
(ecological) and their derivatives ‘Bio’ and ‘Eco’ as indications

the terms ‘Biológico’

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social
del Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia by order of
that Court of 19 January 2004 in the case of Divina
Cortiñas Yáñez against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

(Case C-108/04)

(2004/C 94/71)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Sala de lo Social del
pean Communities by order of
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice,
Galicia, Social Division) of 19 January 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 1 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Divina Cortiñas Yáñez against Instituto Nacional de
la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad
Social on the following questions:

1. Is it contrary to the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of
19 December 1978, and in particular Article 4 thereof, for
a provision of national law to require in order to join a
special social security scheme for agricultural workers,
in
addition to fulfilling the general conditions, that where the
worker is married the income derived from the activities
covered by that scheme should be that couple's main source
of income, in that it is the most substantial?

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.