Case C-191/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, exchange of information, sensitive area, urban area, wastewater

C 156/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.6.2004

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

1) set aside the order;

the directive, namely the agglomerations having an ‘EH’
(habitat equivalent) higher than 10 000 units which discharge
their water into recipient waters considered to be sensitive
areas.

2) grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the

draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively

3) remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any

event

4) order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in
law when it found that, as regards the Defendants' allegedly
unlawful conduct, they (the Applicants) did not specify the
primary rule of law which the Defendants are alleged to have
broken or infringed. The Appellants submit that the Defen-
dants' failure was set out clearly in their application.

Action brought on 26 April 2004 against the French
European
Republic

the

by

of

the Commission
Communities

(Case C-191/04)

(2004/C 156/16)

An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 26 April 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by A. Bordes and G.
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against the French Republic.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. Declare that, by not providing the information to be
collected by 31 December 1999 by the competent authori-
ties or the appropriate bodies as part of the monitoring of
waste discharges and sludges introduced by Article 15 of
Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1), with respect
to the
agglomerations concerned by the 31 December 1998 time-
limit, within six months of the Commission's request of 18
December 2000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 15(4) of that directive.

2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

The French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide
the Commission with the information pertaining to the moni-
toring situation as at 31 December 1999 for the water of the
agglomerations concerned by an initial time-limit laid down in

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.05.1991 concerning urban

waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassa-
tion (France), 1ère chambre civile, by order of that court
of 17 February 2004,
in the case of Société Lagardère
Active Broadcast, as assignee from Europe 1 communica-
tion SA, against Société pour la perception de la rému-
nération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwer-
tung von Leisungsschutzrechten MBG, SARL (GVL), inter-
vener: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télé-
vision Europe 1 SA (CERT)

(Case C-192/04)

(2004/C 156/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Cour de cassation (France),
1ère chambre civile, of 17 February 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 26 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Société Lagardère Active Broadcast, as assignee
from Europe 1 communication SA, against Société pour la
perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft
zur Verwertung von Leisungsschutzrechten MBG, SARL (GVL),
intervener: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télé-
vision Europe 1 SA (CERT), on the following questions:

1. Where a broadcasting company transmitting from the terri-
tory of one Member State uses, in order to extend the trans-
mission of its programmes to a part of its national audience,
a transmitter situated nearby on the territory of another
Member State, of which its majority-held subsidiary is the
licence holder, does the legislation of the latter State govern
the single equitable fee which is required by Article 8(2) of
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 (1) and Article
4 of Directive 93/83 of 27 September 1993 (2) and payable
in respect of the phonograms published for commercial
purposes included in the programmes retransmitted?

2. If so,

is the original broadcasting company entitled to
deduct the sums paid by its subsidiary from the fee claimed
from it in respect of all the transmissions received on the
national territory?

(1) Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental
right and lending right and on certain rights relating to copyright in
the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61).

(2) Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the co-ordi-
nation of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmis-
sion (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).