Case C-343/05: Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, duty-free sale, marketing, tobacco

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/11

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil
under the EC Treaty and Directive 2001/37/EC;

its obligations

Article 16 of Directive 92/43/EEC is an exception to the
system of the strict protection of species in Article 12, so that
it must be interpreted strictly. Article 12(1)
lays down two
preconditions for derogating on the basis of points (a) to (e).
First, the derogation must not be detrimental to the mainte-
nance of the populations of the species concerned at a favour-
able conservation status in their natural range. Second, a dero-
gation is possible only where there is no other satisfactory solu-
tion.

Since the level of protection of the wolf is not favourable in
Finland and other alternative methods are available, and since
permits for hunting wolves are regularly issued without there
being a properly ascertained connection with individuals
causing particularly significant damage, the hunting of wolves
is permitted in Finland to an extent which exceeds the condi-
tions laid down in Article 16(1) of Directive 92/43/EEC.

(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The list in Annex II to Directive 2001/37/EC mentions Direc-
tive 92/41/EEC and the time-limit for transposing its provisions
In the case of
legislation was 1 July 1992.
into national
Finland,
for transposing the provisions into
national legislation based on Finland's accession was 1 January
1995, even though it must be stated that compliance with the
directive was already mandatory for Finland from 1 January
1994 under the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

the time-limit

(1) Directive 2001/37/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regula-
States
tions
concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of
tobacco
products, OJ L 194 of 18.7.2001, p. 26.

and administrative provisions of

the Member

Action brought on 19 September 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-343/05)

(2005/C 281/20)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

Appeal brought on 21 September 2005 by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities against the judgment
delivered on 12 July 2005 by the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-157/
04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-344/05 P)

(2005/C 281/21)

(Language of the case: French)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 19
September 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by L. Pignataro Nolin and M. Huttunen,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that:

Instance of

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2005 by
the Court of First
the European Communities
(single judge) in Case T-157/04 Joël de Bry v Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 21 September 2005 by the
Commission of
the European Communities, represented by
Lidia Lozano Palacios and Hannes Kraemer, acting as Agents.

by not ensuring that Ahvenanmaa (Åland) has transposed
into its legislation Article 8a of Directive 89/622/EEC,
which was added by Directive 92/41/EC and is contained in
Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC, (1) and

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal

by not enduring that the prohibition in the abovementioned
Community provisions of marketing nuuska (oral tobacco)
is complied with on vessels registered in Finland,

— pass final

judgment on the dispute, allowing the claims
submitted by the defendant at first instance and, conse-
quently, dismissing the application in Case T-157/04;