Case C-135/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission ofthe European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, environmental protection, hunting regulations

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/39

2. Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain:

The restrictions laid down in that Act are being extended
beyond the time-limit laid down in Article 166 thereof by
means of the contested regulation and inasmuch as certain
quotas have not been allocated to Spanish vessels in the North
Sea and in the Baltic Sea.

170/83, that is on 31 December 2002. However, the contested
regulation in practice maintains the restrictions on access in
respect of Spanish vessels to waters in the North Sea and in the
Baltic Sea by granting practically no quotas in those waters,
thus disregarding the fact that the transitional period has ended
and discriminating against Spanish fishermen by comparison
with those from other Member States.

3. Breach of the principle of relative stability

2. Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain:

The contested regulation radically changes the decisive factors
so far as concerns the percentage of catches since Spanish
vessels are not on an equal footing with vessels of the other
Member States in terms of the application of the principle of
relative stability.

The restrictions laid down in that Act are being extended
beyond the time-limit laid down in Article 166 thereof by
means of the contested regulation and inasmuch as certain
quotas have not been allocated to Spanish vessels in the North
Sea and in the Baltic Sea.

(1) OJ L 344 of 31.12.2003, p. 1.

3. Infringement of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No

2371/2002

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by Kingdom of Spain
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-134/04)

(2004/C 106/67)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del
Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 (1) of 19
December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities
and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required, in so far as it does not assign specific quotas to
the Spanish fleet in Community waters in the North Sea and
the Baltic Sea;

2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:

Article 166 of the Act of Accession of Spain laid down, so far
as concerns access to waters and resources of the Spanish fleet,
the
a transitional period which ended upon the expiry of
period prescribed in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EEC) No

The distribution of Community fishing opportunities among
in the case of
the Member States has not been carried out,
existing resources, in accordance with the principle of relative
stability and, in the case of new fishing opportunities, having
regard to the interests of the Member States,
in the present
case, those of the Kingdom of Spain.

(1) OJ L 344 of 31.12.2003, p. 1.

Action brought on 12 March 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-135/04)

(2004/C 106/68)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 12
March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michel Van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Gregorio
Valero Jordano, member of its Legal Service, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by allowing the practice of hunting migratory
birds (woodpigeon – Columba palumbus) in Guipúzcoa, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

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.