Case C-157/04: Actionbrought on 29 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, storage of waste, waste management

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/47

Action brought on 26 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-156/04)

— A multiple tax results in being disproportionate to the
gravity of the offence which concerns the temporary move-
ment of vehicles in a Member State. It consequently consti-
tutes a restriction on freedoms laid down by the Treaty and
impedes the free movement of residents of the Community
in infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC.

(2004/C 106/81)

(1) OJ L 105 of 23.04.1983, p. 59.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Commission's
Legal Service, and Dimitris Triantafillou, a member of that
service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 29 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

1. declare that, by applying, in respect of the temporary use on
its territory of vehicles registered in other Member States,
the provisions concerning duties on temporary imports
applicable to vehicles from third countries instead of the
provisions of Directive 83/182/EEC, (1)

— by applying a system of penalties for offences in respect
of the declaration of temporary import of vehicles into
in comparison with the penalties
its territory which,
imposed in practice by the administrative authorities on
persons normally resident in Greece, are clearly dispro-
portionate,

— by systematically levying the taxes provided for

in
respect of the permanent import of vehicles in the case
of a second theft of a temporarily imported vehicle,

— the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 90 EC and Directive 83/182/EEC, in par-
ticular Article 1 thereof;

2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Commission considers

that, by applying to the
temporary use in its territory of vehicles registered in other
Member States
concerning duties on
temporary imports applicable to vehicles from third coun-
tries instead of the provisions of Directive 83/182/EEC, the
Hellenic Republic has infringed its obligations under that
directive, in particular Article 1 thereof.

the provisions

— Determination of normal residence as a precondition for

the imposition of penalties.

(Case C-157/04)

(2004/C 106/82)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 29
March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Minas Konstanti-
nidis, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to
ensure, with respect to the uncontrolled waste tip in the
Punta de Avalos area of the island of Gomera in the Auton-
omous Community of the Canary Islands, the application of
Articles 4, 8, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)
of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991; (2) the application of Article
2 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) of 12 December
1991 on hazardous waste, and the application of Article 14
of Council Directive 1999/31/EC (4) of 26 April 1999 on
the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under those directives;

2. Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to
ensure, with respect to the uncontrolled waste tip in Olvera,
Province of Cadiz, in the Autonomous Community of Anda-
lusia, the application of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15
July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive
91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

C 106/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(c) On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns
both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without
distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that
restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indir-
ectly, actually or potentially,
those
products between Member States?

the free trading of

The existence of uncontrolled tips at Punta de Avalos and
Olvera implies that the Kingdom of Spain has not adopted the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to guar-
antee the responsible disposal and recovery of waste, as
required by the Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Proto-
dikio Ioanninon by decision of that court of 26 November
2003 in the case of Carrefour Marinopoulos AE against (1)
Elliniko Dimosio and (2) Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioan-
ninon

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Proto-
dikio Ioanninon by decision of that court of 10 November
2003 in the case of Trofo-Supermarkets AE against (1) Elli-
niko Dimosio and (2) Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon

(Case C-158/04)

(2004/C 106/83)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioan-
ninon (Administrative Court of First Instance, Ioannina) of 10
November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Trofo-Supermar-
(1) Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and (2)
kets AE against
Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi
Ioanninon (Prefectural Authority of
Ioannina) on the following questions:

(a) Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in
the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’
products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty?

(b) If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does
the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread
pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish
a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the charac-
teristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and
the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judg-
ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 Commission
v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect
consumers and public health from any deterioration in the
bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)
3852/2002)?

(Case C-159/04)

(2004/C 106/84)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioan-
ninon (Administrative Court of First Instance, Ioannina) of 26
November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carrefour Marino-
poulos AE against (1) Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and (2)
Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi
Ioanninon (Prefectural Authority of
Ioannina) on the following questions:

(a) Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in
the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’
products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty?

(b) If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does
the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread
pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish
a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the charac-
teristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and
the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judg-
ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 Commission
v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect
consumers and public health from any deterioration in the
bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)
3852/2002)?

(c) On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns
both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without
distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that
restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indir-
ectly, actually or potentially,
those
products between Member States?

the free trading of