Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Case C-280/02 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 5(1) and (2) and Annex II — Failure to identify sensitive areas — Meaning of ‘eutrophication’ — Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)
Date: 2004-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action for annulment (EU), eutrophication, sensitive area, wastewater, water treatment

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 30 September 2004

has been duly authorised to join that worker in the host Member
State.

(1) OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.

in Case C-275/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Engin Ayaz v Land
Baden-Württemberg (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement
for
workers — First paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80
of the Association Council — Personal scope — Concept of
‘member of the family’ of a Turkish worker duly registered
as belonging to the labour force of a Member State —
Stepson of such a worker)

(2004/C 284/01)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-275/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart
(Germany), made by decision of 11 July 2002, received at the
in the proceedings between Engin
Court on 26 July 2002,
Ayaz and Land Baden-Württemberg — the Court
(Second
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), and F. Macken, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30
September 2004, in which it has ruled:

The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Associa-
tion Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Asso-
ciation, adopted by the Association Council established by the Asso-
ciation Agreement between the European Economic Community and
Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a stepson who is under
the age of 21 years or is a dependant of a Turkish worker duly regis-
tered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State is a member
of the family of that worker, for the purposes of that provision, and
enjoys the rights conferred on him by that decision, provided that he

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 23 September 2004

in Case C-280/02 Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 5(1)
and (2) and Annex II — Failure to identify sensitive areas —
Meaning of ‘eutrophication’ — Failure to implement more
stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)

(2004/C 284/02)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-280/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Nolin and subsequently G. Valero Jordana and F.
Simonetti) against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, D.
Petrausch and E. Puisais) — action under Article 226 EC for
failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 July 2002, the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23
September 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by having failed:

C 284/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.11.2004

— to identify the Seine bay, the Seine downstream of its conflu-
ence with the Andelle, the coastal waters of the Artois-Picardy
basin, Vilaine bay,
roadstead, Elorn estuary,
Douarnenez bay, Concarneau bay, the Gulf of Morbihan, the
Vistre downstream from Nîmes and Thau lagoon as sensitive
areas with respect to eutrophication, and

the Lorient

— to subject to more stringent treatment discharges of urban
waste water from the agglomerations — except for Vichy,
Aix-en-Provence, Mâcon, Créhange, Saint-Avold, Bailleul,
Aurillac, Montauban, Châtillon-sur-Seine and Gray —
referred to in the French authorities'
letter of 12 December
2000 and from the Montpellier agglomeration, and to subject
to more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water
from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of
more than 10 000 into the Seine bay, the Seine downstream
of its confluence with the Andelle, the coastal waters of the
Artois-Picardy basin, Vilaine bay, the Lorient roadstead, Elorn
estuary, Douarnenez bay, Concarneau bay,
the Gulf of
Morbihan,
the Vistre downstream from Nîmes and Thau
lagoon,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
Article 5(1) and (2) of, and Annex II
to, Council Directive
91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water
treatment;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 23 September 2004

in Case C-297/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Public storage of
alcohol — Aid for olive oil production — Financial years
1997, 1998 and 1999 — Decision 2002/523/EC)

(2004/C 284/03)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-297/02: application for annulment under Article 230
EC, brought on 21 August 2002, in the proceedings between
Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli)
and Commission of
the Euorpean Communities (Agent: A.
Aresu) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A Rosas,
acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and N.
Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004,
in which it has ruled:

1. The action is dismissed;

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear the costs.

(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 23 September 2004

in Case C-414/02: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslar-
arasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul v Finanzlandesdirek-
tion für Oberösterreich (1)

(Community Customs Code — Article 202 — Accrual of the
customs debt — Unlawful introduction into the Community
customs territory — Meaning of ‘debtor’ of such a debt —
Extension to the employer of liability for the debt of an
employee who has committed irregularities in the perfor-
mance of customs obligations)

(2004/C 284/04)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-414/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Austria),
made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court
on 19 November 2002, in the proceedings between Spedition
Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul and Finan-
(Second
zlandesdirektion für Oberösterreich — the Court
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann,
(Rapporteur), R.
Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23
September 2004, in which it has ruled:

J.-P. Puissochet

Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12
October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be
interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation
such as Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz (Act
to implement customs law) which, in the event of unlawful introduc-
tion into the customs territory of the Community of goods subject to
import duties, makes the employer co-debtor of the customs debt of
the
the employee who introduced those goods in the conduct of
employer's affairs,
the
that
employer took part in the introduction of the goods and knew or
ought reasonably to have known that such introduction was unlawful.

such legislation requires

so long as

(1) OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.