Case C-145/04: Actionbrought on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spainagainst the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European election, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, right to stand for election, right to vote

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/43

1. Are the provisions of Articles 3, 4(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and
10(1) to (4) of Council Directive 92/51/EEC on a second
general system for the recognition of professional education
and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (1) uncon-
ditional and sufficiently precise so that, during the time that
elapsed between the expiry of the period prescribed for
transposing the directive and its belated transposition into
the national
law of a particular Member State (the host
Member State), they could be relied upon against an admin-
istrative body of that latter Member State, to which the
national legislation in force at the time when the directive
was transposed entrusted competence to grant permission
to pursue a particular regulated profession, by an individual
who, relying on the fact that he holds a diploma acquired in
another Member State and falling within the scope of appli-
cation of the above provisions of the directive asks to be
allowed, in application of those provisions, to take up and
pursue the profession in question in the host Member State?

2. If it is considered that, during the time that elapsed between
the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing Directive
92/51/EEC and its belated transposition into the national
law of a particular Member State (the host Member State),
the provisions of the directive were not capable of being
relied upon by an individual against an administrative body
of that Member State to which the national legislation in
force before the directive was transposed entrusted compe-
tence to grant permission to pursue a particular profession
either to graduates of the appropriate Technological Educa-
tion and Training Establishment or to holders of a foreign
diploma recognised as equivalent to a qualification from the
Technological Education and Training Establishments of
that State,
following a generally-applicable, procedure
described in the grounds of the reference, could that admin-
istrative body, taking into account the provisions of Articles
39 and 43 (formerly Articles 48 and 52) of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Community, make acceptance of an
application by an individual who, relying on a qualification
acquired in another Member State, asked, during the above
period of time, to be allowed to take up and pursue the
above profession in the host Member State, depend on
previous recognition, in accordance with the general proce-
dure described above, of the equivalence of the qualification
held to qualifications awarded by Technological Education
and Training Establishments of that State, or should it have
taken steps itself to undertake a comparative examination of
the capacities attested to by the qualification submitted
against
required by
the knowledge and qualifications
national legislation and to reach a decision accordingly?

(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.

Action brought on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.

(Case C-145/04)

(2004/C 106/74)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of
Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by enacting the ‘European Parliament (Repre-
sentation) Act 2003’, the United Kingdom has failed to
fulfil its obligations under articles 189, 190, 17 and 19 of
the EC Treaty, as well as the 1976 Act concerning the Elec-
tion of the Representatives of the European Parliament by
Direct Universal Suffrage, annexed to the Council Decision
of 20 September 1976 - 76/787/ECSC, EEE, EURATOM -
on direct elections to the European Parliament (1) and

— order

the United Kingdom to pay the costs of

these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The legal grounds on which this application relies are the
following:

I. Violation of articles 189, 190 17 and 19 of the EC Treaty,

since

(a) The European Parliament

(Representation) Act 2003
(hereinafter EPRA 2003) recognizes the right to vote in
the elections to the European Parliament to persons
who are not nationals of a Member State (i.e. the quali-
fying Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar) and,
the
therefore, do not have the status of citizens of
Union. In the Kingdom of Spain's view there is a clear
link between the citizenship of the Union and the right
to vote and stand in European parliamentary elections.

(b) The right to vote in European parliamentary elections is
regulated in article 190 EC. Therefore, the basis regu-
lation of this right is a Community competence. The
only persons who may exercise this right are the citizens
of the Union, because article 190 EC should be inter-
preted systematically with articles 17 and 19 EC.

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: