Case C-199/04: Action brought on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, national implementing measure, project evaluation

C 179/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank 's-
Gravenhage by order of 22 April 2004 in the case of
Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie Nevedi v
Produktschap Diervoeder

sented by K. Wiedner and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(Case C-194/04)

(2004/C 179/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of 22 April 2004 of the Rechtbank
's-Gravenhage (Local Court, The Hague), which was received at
the Court Registry on 27 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie
Nevedi v Produktschap Diervoeder on the following questions:

1. Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 28 EC, since Senaatti-kiinteistöt,
when procuring institutional kitchen equipment,
infringed
fundamental provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular the
principle of non-discrimination, which includes the obliga-
tion of publicity, and

2. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Are Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2 (1) and/or Article
1(4) of Directive 2002/2, to the extent to which it amends
Article 5c(2)(a) of Directive 79/373 by requiring percentages
to be listed, invalid by reason of:

Although the Community directives concerning public procure-
ment do not apply to contracts whose value is less than their
the EC
threshold of application,
Treaty must be complied with,
in particular the principle of
non-discrimination, which includes the obligation of publicity.

fundamental provisions of

(a) the absence of a legal basis in Article 152(4)(b) EC;

(b) infringement of fundamental rights, such as the right to
freely to exercise a trade or

property and the right
profession;

(c) infringement of the principle of proportionality?

2. If the conditions are satisfied under which a national court
of a Member State is entitled to suspend implementation of
a contested measure of the Community institutions, in par-
ticular also the condition that the question concerning the
validity of the contested measure has already been referred
by a national court of that Member State to the Court of
Justice, are the competent public authorities of the other
judicial
Member States themselves also entitled, without
intervention, to suspend the contested measure until such
time as the Court of
Justice has given a ruling on the
validity of that measure?

(1) OJ L 63 of 6 March 2002, pp. 23 to 25.

the procurement directives,

Justice has held that, even though certain
The Court of
contracts concerning public procurement are outside the scope
of
the procurement authorities
which conclude them must nevertheless comply with the
fundamental provisions of the Treaty. Even though the Com-
munity legislature considered that the detailed procedures laid
down in the directives concerning public procurement are not
regarded as applicable to public contracts below the threshold
values in accordance with those provisions, that alone does not
mean, however, that such procurement contracts do not fall
within the scope of Community law.

The case-law clearly shows that a procurement must be made
public to a reasonable extent and that that obligation of publi-
city must be complied with even in the case of contracts whose
estimated values are below the threshold of application of the
EC procurement directives.

Action brought on 29 April 2004 by the Commission of
the Republic of
the European Communities against

Action brought on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the United Kingdom

Finland

(Case C-195/04)

(2004/C 179/08)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 April
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-

(Case C-199/04)

(2004/C 179/09)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ms Claire-Françoise Durand and Ms Florence Simonetti,
acting as agents, assisted by Miss Anneli Howard, Barrister,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/5

The Applicant claims that the Court should declare that:

1) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
has failed to take all the measures necessary to ensure the
complete and correct implementation of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (1) as amended by
Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2).

2) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

are liable to pay the costs.

1. Do Articles 217 to 232 of the Community Customs Code
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code – these
being the provisions of Chapter 3 (‘Recovery of the amount
of the customs debt’) of Title VII (‘Customs debt’), the said
Chapter 3 consisting of a Section 1 (‘Entry in the accounts
and communication of the amount of duty to the debtor’ –
Arts 217 to 221) and a Section 2 (‘Time limit and proce-
dures for payment of the amount of duty’ – Arts 222 to
232) – apply to the recovery of a customs debt which was
incurred prior to 1 January 1994 but recovery of which was
not undertaken or initiated prior to 1 January 1994?

Pleas in law and main arguments:

It is not disputed that the UK has adopted the necessary legisla-
tion to implement Directive 85/337 as well as the amendments
introduced by Directive 97/11. This application concerns the
manner in which the UK authorities have interpreted and
applied the relevant provisions which, the Commission asserts,
fails to ensure the correct and complete implementation into
national
the Directive, both in its unamended and
amended form.

law of

In this application the Commission puts forward two main
heads of infringement, namely:

a) that the use by the UK authorities of the domestic ‘material
change of use’ test in relation to the approval of the plan-
ning application, coupled with the narrow interpretation of
‘project’, operates to exclude certain projects and modifica-
tions of existing projects from the legitimate scope of the
Directive with the result that
Impact
|Assessment procedures are not applied to such projects;
and

the Environmental

b) that the UK government has failed to integrate its planning
and pollution controls adequately so as to ensure compli-
ance with all of the obligations in Article 3 and 8 of the
Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep
te Antwerpen by order of 27 April 2004 in the case of
Belgian State and Ministry of Finance v N.V. Molenberg-
natie

(Case C-201/04)

(2004/C 179/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of 27 April 2004 of the Hof van
Beroep te Antwerpen (Appeal Court, Antwerp), which was
received at the Court Registry on 5 May 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Belgian State and Ministry of
Finance v N.V. Molenbergnatie on the following questions:

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: must the
notification prescribed in Article 221 of the Community
Customs Code always take place after the amount of the
duties has been entered in the accounts, or, in other words,
must the notification prescribed in Article 221 of the Com-
munity Customs Code always be preceded by entry of the
duties in the accounts?

3. Does late notification of the amount of duties to the debtor
– that is to say, notification made after expiry of the three-
year period laid down in the original version of Article
221(3) of the Community Customs Code (in force prior to
its replacement
[effective from 19 December 2000] by
Article 1.17 of Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000),
even though the customs authorities were in fact in a posi-
tion to determine, within that three-year period, the precise
amount of the duties legally due – make it impossible to
pursue recovery of the customs debt in question, lead to the
cancellation of the customs debt in question, or have some
other consequence in law?

4. Must Member States determine the manner in which notifi-
cation of the amount of duties, as laid down in Article 221
of the Community Customs Code, must be made to the
debtor?

If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, can
the Member State which has failed to specify how notifica-
tion of the amount of duties as laid down in Article 221 of
the Community Customs Code should be made to the
debtor argue that any document in which the amount of
the duties is set out and which (following entry in the
accounts) was notified to the debtor may constitute notifica-
tion to the debtor of the amount of duties, as prescribed in
Article 221 of the Community Customs Code, even though
that document does not in any way refer to Article 221 of
the Community Customs Code or indicate that it relates to
notification to the debtor of the amount of duties owed?

(1) OJ L 302 of 19 October 1992, pp. 1-50.