Case C-139/04: Actionbrought on 15 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air quality, anhydride, carcinogenic substance, lead, oxide, pollution control

C 106/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The hunting of returning migratory birds, ‘caza a contrapasa’,
in this instance woodpigeon returning to their rearing grounds,
entails a failure to comply with Article 7(4) of Directive
79/409.

None of the reasons put forward by the Kingdom of Spain to
justify the practice of that type of hunting in Guipúzcoa is
acceptable:

— adoption of a derogation from Article 7(4) on the basis of
Article 9(1)(c) of the Directive, since in this case the condi-
tion that there is no other satisfactory solution, which must
be met for the system of exceptions to apply properly, is
not fulfilled.

— historical and cultural

traditions and social convention,
since those are not reasons capable of justifying the deroga-
tions laid down in Article 9, given that
they are not
mentioned in that provision.

— judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 252/85 Commis-
sion v France, since the judgment was given in relation to a
derogation from Article 8(1) of the Directive relating to
hunting methods.

(1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) by decision of that Court of 8 March 2004 in
the case of Amy Rockler against the Riksförsäkringsverket
(the social insurance office)

(Case C-137/04)

(2004/C 106/69)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by the Regeringsrätten (Supreme Adminis-
trative Court) for a preliminary ruling by decision of 8 March
2004, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2004 in the
case of Amy Rockler against the Riksförsäkringsverket on the
following question:

Are the provisions of Article 39 EC to be interpreted as
meaning that - on application of a provision of national law
requiring a worker to have been insured for a certain qualifying
period in order to receive payment at the rate of sickness
benefit during parental leave - aggregation should be allowed
with a period during which the worker was covered by the
Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme in accordance with the rules
in the Staff Regulations for officials of the European Commu-
nities?

Action brought on 15 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-139/04)

(2004/C 106/70)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by communicating to the Commission only in
part the methods used for the preliminary assessment of air
quality under Article 3 in respect of the substances covered
by Directive 1999/30/EC (1) and by sending after 30
September 2002 the questionnaire adopted by Decision
2001/839/EC (2), providing only certain information in
respect of 2001 on the substances covered by Directive
1999/30/EC, as laid down by Article 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and
Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 1996/62/EC (3),
the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11
in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 1996/62/EC
and with Directive 1999/30/EC, and its obligations under
Article 11 in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive
1996/62/EC, with Directive 1999/30/EC and with Article 1
of Decision 2001/839/EC;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/41

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The treatment of the information communicated by Italy with
regard to the Regions and certain of them appears to infringe
stated in the reasoned opinion. To date,
the obligations
however, the Commission has not received information on the
methods used for the preliminary assessment of air quality
under Article 5 of Directive 96/62/EC in respect of
the
covered by Directive 1999/30/EC from the
substances
following regions: Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania,
Emilia Romagna, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Molise, Puglia,
Sardegna, Sicilia, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Umbria and
Veneto. Furthermore, the questionnaires in respect of 2001 on
the substances covered by Directive 99/30/EC, as laid down by
Article 11(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and Article 11(1)(b) of Directive
1996/62/EC appear to be missing in respect of the following
Regions: Abruzzo, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Friuli Venezia
Giulia, Molise, Puglia, Sardegna, Sicilia, Provincia Autonoma di
Bolzano and Umbria.

(1) OJ L 163 of 29.06.1999, p. 41.
(2) OJ L 319 of 04.12.2001, p. 45.
(3) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Antwerpen, of 11 March 2004 in proceedings
between N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies and the
Kingdom of Belgium and between N.V. Seaport Terminals
and (1) the Kingdom of Belgium and (2) N.V. United
Antwerp Maritime Agencies

(Case C-140/04)

(2004/C 106/71)

The Hof van Beroep Antwerp te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal,
Antwerp), on the basis of its decision of 11 March 2004,
received at the Court’s Registry on 16 March 2004,
in the
proceedings pending before that court between N.V. United
Antwerp Maritime Agencies and the Kingdom of Belgium and
between N.V. Seaport Terminals and (1)
the Kingdom of
Belgium and (2) N.V. United Antwerp Maritime Agencies,
refers to the Court of Justice for the European Communities for
a preliminary ruling the following questions:

1. May the person who must present the goods to customs
(Article 40 of the Community Customs Code in Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p.1)) be deemed to be the person required to fulfil the obli-
gations arising from temporary storage of the goods (final
indent of Article 203(3) of the Community Customs Code),
in which connection he or his representative must lodge the
summary declaration (Article 44(2) thereof) and must sign it

(Article 183(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1)), and must make the goods available to the customs
authorities for as long as they have not been released from
the means of transport in which they are located when the
goods are brought into the Community and until such time
as those goods have received a custom designation?

2. May the person required to fulfil the obligations arising
from temporary storage of the goods (final indent of Article
203(3) of the Community Customs Code) be deemed to be
the person who, after release of the goods, has them in his
possession in order to move them or store them, in conse-
quence of which, under Article 51(2) and 53(2) of the Com-
munity Customs Code, he is deemed to be the holder of the
goods and is consequently required, under Article 184(2) of
the implementing provisions, to re-present the goods at the
request of the customs authorities?

3. If the first and second questions are answered affirmatively,
may the persons referred to in those questions consequently
be deemed to be joint and several customs debtors, it being
understood that the persons mentioned in the first and
second questions are different persons (in this case the
representative of the shipping line by which the goods were
brought
forwarder
into the Community and the freight
responsible for the storage and removal of the goods at the
unloading place or quayside indicated by the customs autho-
rities?

4. If

the third question is answered affirmatively does the
person mentioned in the first question remain the debtor
until the goods are given a customs designation, regardless
of the fact that after release of the goods from the means of
transport by which they entered the Community they were
stored with or removed by the person mentioned in the
second question?

5. If the third question is answered in the negative must the
person mentioned in the first question be regarded as
remaining a customs debtor until the goods are received by
the person mentioned in the second question and does the
person mentioned in the second question become a debtor
only from the time when he arranges the storage and
removal of the goods?

6. If the first question is answered affirmatively and the second
question negatively must the person mentioned in the first
question continue to be regarded as the debtor until the
time when the goods are received by the person mentioned
in the second question or until the time when the goods
have been given a customs designation?