Case C-147/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France), Judicial Section, by a judgment of that court of 4 February 2004 in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. against the Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener: Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de la région Bretagne (CERAFEL)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product nomenclature, bulb vegetable, interpretation of the law, plant propagation

C 106/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

(c) The term ‘peoples of the States’ used in articles 189 and
190 EC has to be interpreted as meaning only nationals
of the Member States, and does not include non-EU
nationals, even if they reside in a territory to which
Community law applies.

(d) Granting the right to vote and stand in the elections to
the European Parliament to persons who are not Union
citizens implies a breach of the Union citizenship, as
certain persons would enjoy the right to vote and stand
for the European Parliament, but would not possess the
other rights of Union citizenship.

(e) Accepting Member States' unilateral competence in
conferring the right
to vote and stand in European
parliamentary elections would open the door to similar
claims in other Member States.

II. Violation of the 1976 Act, since

the 1976 Act excludes Gibraltar from its objective sphere of
application when regulating European parliamentary elec-
tions. This exclusion is consistent with the status of
Gibraltar, according to International and Community law.

The United Kingdom accepted in its Statement of 18
February 2004 to enable the Gibraltar electorate to vote in
elections to the European Parliament as part of and on the
same terms as the electorate of an existing United Kingdom
constituency.

the EPRA 2003 includes

Nevertheless
the territory of
Gibraltar (not its electorate) in an existing electoral region in
the United Kingdom. This combined electoral region violates
the 1976 Act and the above mentioned Statement.

(1) OJ L 278, 08.10.1976, p. 1.

Action brought on 19 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

(Case C-146/04)

(2004/C 106/75)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Michel van Beek and Gregorio Valero
Jordana, acting as agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regula-
tions and administrative measures necessary to comply with

— Directive 2000/69/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 16 November 2000 relating to limit
values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient
air (1) and

— Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission
ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (2) or in any
event to inform the Commission thereof,

the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under those directives;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing Directive 2000/69/EC expired on
13 December 2002 and the period for implementing Directive
2001/81/EC expired on 27 November 2002.

(1) OJ L 313, of 13 December 2000, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 309, of 27 November 2001, p. 22.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France), Judicial Section, by a judgment of that court of
4 February 2004 in the case of De Groot en Slot Allium
B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. against
for
Economy, Finance and Industry and the Minister for Agri-
culture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener:
Comité économique agricole régional fruits et légumes de
la région Bretagne (CERAFEL)

the Minister

(Case C-147/04)

(2004/C 106/76)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Conseil d'Etat (France),
Judicial Section, of 4 February 2004, received at the Court
Registry on 22 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of De Groot en Slot Allium B.V. and Bejo Zaden B.V. v
Minister for Economy, Finance and Industry and Minister for
Agriculture, Food, Fisheries and Rural Affairs – intervener:
Comité économique agricole regional fruits et legumes de la
region Bretagne (CERAFEL) – on the following question:

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/45

Must the provisions of Directive 70/458 (1) in conjunction with
those of Directive 92/33 (2) be interpreted in such a way that it
is possible to include in the common catalogue of varieties
only varieties of shallots which reproduce without seeds, by
vegetative propagation, and, accordingly, could the varieties
‘Matador’ and ‘Ambition’ lawfully be included in the common
catalogue in the entry dealing with shallots?

the territory of the Municipality of Carrara, it is ‘exported’
from that territory and gives rise to a toll system (yielding
LIT 754,561,665 in 1996) by which the tax authority
infringes the principles of the free movement of goods and
freedom of competition in the pricing of products, contrary
to Articles 23 (ex Article 9) to 31 of the EC Treaty;

(1) Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the
marketing of vegetable seed (OJ English Special Edition 1970 (III), p.
674).

(c) the ‘marble charge’, which does not apply to extracted
marble that does not leave the territory of the Municipality
of Carrara, inevitably gives rise to unfavourable treatment
of those persons transporting that commodity outside the
territory of that municipality, which is incompatible with
the rules contained in Articles 81, 85 and 86 of the current
text of the Treaty (formerly Articles 85, 89 and 90).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione, Sezione Tributaria, by interlocutory order
of that court of 27 October 2003, in the case of IMEG srl
Fallita against Comune Carrara

(Case C-149/04)

(2004/C 106/77)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di Cassa-
zione, Sezione Tributaria (Supreme Court of Cassation, Tax
Chamber) (Italy) of 27 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 23 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling on the
following question:

whether an Italian law which establishes a charge on the extrac-
tion of marble carried out in a particular municipality and on
its export from the territory of that municipality, with exemp-
tions for marble used in the territory of the municipality of
production, is compatible with the EC Treaty in so far as:

(a) the ‘marble charge’, governed by Law No 749/1911, is a
compulsory payment of uncertain legal nature given that it
cannot technically be classified as a charge since its amount
does not correspond to the supply of services to each
taxable person, nor technically as a tax since it bears no
relationship to the capacity to pay;

(b) the ‘marble charge’, which is used to finance the expendi-
ture of the Municipality of Carrara arising directly or indir-
ectly from the extraction of marble, appears to constitute a
type of ‘duty’ on a commodity in that, after extraction in

(2) Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of
vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed (OJ L
157 of 10.06.1992, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of
16 January 2004 in the case Ministère public against

(Case C-151/04)

(2004/C 106/78)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Police (local
criminal court), Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 16 January 2004,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2004,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère public against
Claude Nadin - third party to the proceedings: Nadin-Lux SA.

The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court
of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following ques-
tion:

Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a
Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker
who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there
even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company
established in another Member State and to which that worker
is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same
time he occupies a the position of shareholder, director, day-to-
day manager or similar?