Case C-88/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, information system, maritime safety, maritime transport, pollution from ships, transport accident, transport of dangerous goods

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/19

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 22
December 2003.

(1) OJ L 327 of 22.12.2000, p. 1.

(Case C-87/05)

(2005/C 93/35)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-86/05)

(2005/C 93/34)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 2003/32/EC (1) of 23
April 2003 introducing detailed specifications as regards
the requirements laid down in Council Directive 93/42/EEC
to medical devices manufactured utilising
with respect
in any event, by failing to
tissues of animal origin or,
communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 8(1) of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
to comply with
administrative provisions necessary
Commission Directive 2003/12/EC (1) of 3 February 2003
on the reclassification of breast implants in the framework
of Directive 93/42/EEC (2) concerning medical devices or, in
any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to
the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 3(1) of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1
August 2003.

(1) OJ L 28 of 04.02.2003, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 169 of 12.07.1993, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-88/05)

(2005/C 93/36)

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1
January 2004.

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(1) OJ L 105 of 26.04.2003, p. 18.

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the European Communities on 18
the Court of
February 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 93/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to bring into force all the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 27 June 2002 (1) establishing a Com-
munity vessel traffic monitoring and information system
and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, or at least by
failing to communicate them to the Commission,
the
Republic of Finland has failed to comply with its obligations
under the directive;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Emsland-Stärke GmbH and Bezirksregierung Weser-Ems on the
following questions

1.

(a) Does Article 13(4) in conjunction with Article 4(5) of
Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1125/96 apply where a contract said to be a
cultivation contract is concluded and is accepted by the
competent authority under Article 4(2) and (3) of the
Regulation but where the contract is not concluded with
a potato producer but with a dealer who obtains the
potatoes directly or indirectly from potato producers?

The period prescribed for implementation of
expired on 5 February 2004.

the directive

(b) Does Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1125/96 require the
starch-producing undertaking to have exceeded its sub-
quota by taking delivery of the potatoes?

(1) OJ L 208 of 5.8.2002, p. 10.

2.

(a) Does the system of sanctions provided for in Article
13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regu-
lation (EC) No 1125/96, by contradistinction to Article
13(3) of that Regulation, satisfy Community-law stan-
dards of certainty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht by judgment of that court of 9 December
2004 in Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Bezirksregierung Weser-
Ems

(b) Is the sanction provided for in Article 13(4) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regulation (EC) No
1125/96, in view of its amount, necessary to protect the
financial
the Community within the
meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2988/95 in cases such as this? Is it commensurate with
protection of the financial interests of the Community
in cases such as this?

interests of

(Case C-94/05)

(2005/C 93/37)

(Language of the case: German)

3. Is an irregularity liable to a sanction under Article 13(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1125/96 caused by negligence within the meaning of
Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 even
if the authority has approved the premium in full knowl-
edge of the facts?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Bundesverwaltungs-
pean Communities by judgment of
gericht
(Germany) of 9
December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 February

(Federal Administrative Court)