Case C-46/05: Action brought on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air transport, arrangement of working time, crew, organisation of work, working time

C 93/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijsleven by order of that court of 2
February 2005 in Maatschap Schonewille-Prins v Minister
van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-45/05)

(2005/C 93/18)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het
for Trade and Industry)
Bedrijsleven (Administrative Court
(Netherlands) of 2 February 2005,
the Court
Registry on 8 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Maatschap Schonewille-Prins and Minister
van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following
questions:

received at

1. Is Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 (1) to be
interpreted as meaning that any irregularity in complying
with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 in respect of an animal
results in the complete exclusion of slaughter premium for
that animal?

2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is Article
21 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 then binding, in par-
ticular regarding the resulting consequences?

tions to it by means of a national sanction to ensure compli-
ance with the provisions of the Regulation?

6. If question 5 is to be answered wholly or partially in the
affirmative, do the exceptions from Community reductions
and exclusions laid down at Community level, in particular
Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001, apply
by analogy to national reductions and exclusions?

7. If question 6 is to be answered in the affirmative, does a
correct application of Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No
2419/2001 in conjunction with Article 44 mean that omis-
sions relating to the notification of
information to the
in particular the late provision of
computerised database,
information, cannot result
in the exclusion of slaughter
premium if the information in the register, such as in this
case the date of delivery, is factually entirely accurate?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L
160, p. 21).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes established
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identifica-
tion and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling
of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No
820/97 (OJ 2000 L 204, p. 1).

(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L
391, p. 36).

3. Are Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation (EC) No
2419/2001 (2) applicable to irregularities in complying with
Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000? (3)

Action brought on 7 February 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

the computerised database if

4. If question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative, does the
correct application of Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No
2419/2001 in conjunction with Article 44 mean that the
exclusion of slaughter premium is not applicable to an
omission relating to the notification of information to the
the information
keeper of
provided, such as in this case the dates of delivery,
is
factually entirely accurate (and was also correct from the
very beginning and therefore did not need to be amended)?
If this does not apply to every omission, does it apply in the
situation at issue in this dispute, where the omission has
consisted of the late provision of information (by a few days
or a few weeks), with slaughter taking place some consider-
able time later?

(Case C-46/05)

(2005/C 93/19)

(Language of procedure: English)

5. Is Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (4) and/or
Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and/or Article
47(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State is authorised to exclude the
Community right to a slaughter premium or apply reduc-

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 7 February 2005 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/11

The Commission requests the Court

a) to find that Ireland has failed its obligations under the EC
Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with Council Direc-
tive 2000/79/EC of 27th November 2000 concerning the
European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time
of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Asso-
ciation of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport
Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Associa-
tion (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA)
and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (1) or
by failing to ensure that management and labour have intro-
duced the necessary measures by agreement, and/or by
failing to inform the Commission thereof;

Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 (1) of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
members of their families moving within the Community to be
interpreted as meaning that in a situation where a pensioner is
entitled under Article 27 of the regulation to claim sickness
and maternity benefits only from the institution of the place of
residence and at the expense of that institution, the assessment
of sickness insurance contributions in such a way that in the
pensioner's State of residence both the pensions received from
that State and the pensions he receives from another State are
taken into account as the basis for determining the amount of
the sickness insurance
those contributions – provided that
contributions do not exceed the amount of pensions awarded
by the State of residence – is incompatible with that provision?

and

(1) OJ English Special Edition, Series I Chapter 1971 (II), p. 416.

b) to condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 1 December 2003.

(1) OJ L 302, 01.12.2000, p. 57

Action brought on 9 February 2005 by the Commission of
the Republic of
the European Communities against

Finland

(Case C-54/05)

(2005/C 93/21)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
Hallinto-oikeus by decision of that court of 4 February
2005 in the case of Maija Terttu Inkeri Nikula

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(Case C-50/05)

(2005/C 93/20)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 9
February 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by M. van Beek and M. Huttunen, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Language of the case: Finnish)

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus
(Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) of 4 February 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 8 February 2005, for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings concerning Maija Terttu
Inkeri Nikula on the following question:

1. declare that, by requiring a transfer licence for vehicles
lawfully used and registered in another Member State, the
Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

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