Case C-65/05: Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of goods, gaming, marketing restriction, public safety, technical standard

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/21

Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-63/05)

(2005/C 82/42)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
the Commission's Legal
sented by Minas Konstantinidis, of
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/3/EC of
the European Parliament and of the
Council of 12 February 2002 relating to ozone in ambient
in any event, by
air (OJ L 67 of 9.3.2002, p. 14) and,
failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive.

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 9 September 2003.

transposing the directive into

Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission
the Hellenic
of

against

the European Communities
Republic

(Case C-65/05)

(2005/C 82/43)

(Language of the case: Greek)

— declare that, by prohibiting,

in Article 2(1), Article 3,
second part, Article 4 and Article 5 of Law 3037/2002, the
installation and operation of all electrical, electronic and
electromechanical games,
including recreational games of
skill and all games for electronic computers, on all public
or private premises apart
the Hellenic
Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28,
43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive
98/34 EC.

from casinos,

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission has objected to the legislative prohibition on
installing and operating all electrical, electronic and electrome-
chanical games,
including recreational games of skill and all
games for electronic computers, on all public or private
premises apart from casinos.

In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commis-
sion considers that the above prohibition constitutes a measure
restricting the free movement of goods, freedom of establish-
ment and freedom to provide services. The Commission also
points out that the Law in question was not notified to it when
it was being drafted, in infringement of Article 8(1) of Directive
98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of
22 June 1998 which provides for a procedure for provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations
the information
and for
society.

rules concerning the services of

The Commission also considers that
the grounds cited of
protecting public order and in particular the concern that
recreational machines should not be converted into games of
chance, with the consequence of creating a social problem, do
not constitute sufficient reasons for laying down the prohibitive
measures in issue, since the purpose cited could be achieved by
measures that were more appropriate and proportionate and
less restrictive of the above freedoms.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Commission's
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

In addition, according to the Commission, the need cited by
the Greek authorities for laying down the measures as a matter
of urgency does not justify the failure to inform the Commis-
sion, since Directive 98/34 provides for an accelerated proce-
dure.

C 82/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

The Commission therefore considers that the Hellenic Republic
is in infringement of its obligations under Articles 28, 43 and
49 of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC.

Appeal brought on 11 February 2005 by Koninklijke
Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against the judgment delivered on
7 December 2004 by the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) in Case T-240/02 Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun
U.A.v Commission of the European Communities

(1) OJ L 204 of 21.07.98, p. 37.

Action brought on 11 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic
of Germany

(Case C-67/05)

(2005/C 82/44)

(Language of the case: German)

the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 11 February 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Sara
Pardo Quintillian, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Direc-
tive 2000/60/EC of
the European Parliament and the
Council (1) of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action in the field of water policy, or to
inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

(Case C-68/05 P)

(2005/C 82/45)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December 2004
by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-240/
02, Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. v Commission of the
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 11 February 2005 by
Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A., represented by M. Slot-
boom and N.J. Helder, advocates.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested judgment;

— Determine the dispute itself by setting aside the contested

decision;

— In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First

Instance;

and order the Commission to pay the costs, at both first
instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

First plea

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2000/60/EC expired
on 22 December 2003.

Infringement of Community law by virtue of the fact that the
Court of First Instance held that the levy on non-exported C-
sugar is not an import or export duty for the purposes of
Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79.

(1) OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.

Second alternative plea

The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that the levy on
non-exported C-sugar must indeed be treated as an import duty
for the purposes of Regulation No 1430/79.