Case C-372/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, customs regulations, military equipment, military secret, own resources, tariff exemption

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/17

Action brought on 27 September 2005 by Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-364/05)

(2005/C 296/31)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
the European
27 September 2005 by the Commission of
Communities, represented by Michel van Beek, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

to

comply

the European Parliament and of

the legislative and administrative
by failing to adopt
Directive
necessary
measures
2001/20/EC (1) of
the
Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to the implementation of good clinical prac-
tice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products
for human use

with

by failing to adopt
the legislative and administrative
measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive
2003/94/EC (2) of 8 October 2003 laying down the princi-
ples and guidelines of good manufacturing practice in
respect of medicinal products for human use and investiga-
tional medicinal products for human use

(Case C-369/05)

(2005/C 296/32)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service, and N.
Yerrell, a member of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning
the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working
Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the
Association of European Airlines
the European
Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit
Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Associa-
tion (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association
(IACA), (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commis-
sion thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive;

(AEA),

2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— the period prescribed for transposing the directive into

national law expired on 1 December 2003.

or in any event by failing to notify such measures to the
Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 1.12.2000, p. 57.

has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first paragraph of Article 22 of Directive 2001/20 provides
that Member States are to bring the necessary legislative and
administrative measures for complying with the directive into
force by 1 May 2003 and inform the Commission accordingly.
In the case of Directive 2003/94, Article 17 sets the deadline at
30 April 2004.

(1) OJ 2001 L 121, p. 34.
(2) OJ 2003 L 262, p. 22.

Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-372/05)

(2005/C 296/33)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against
the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Dr. Günter Wilms, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 296/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by refusing in the period from 1 January 1998
to 31 December 2002,
to calculate and transfer own
resources which were not levied on the import of military
equipment exempt from duty and to pay to the Commission
default interest as a result of not making available the own
resources, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 2, Article 9, Article 10
and Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 (1) and Regulation
No 1150/2000 (2);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Federal Republic of Germany granted exemptions from
duty on the import of military goods as from 1 January 1998
and therefore paid no own resources. The defendant did not,
despite the request made of it, calculate the amount of own
resources which had not, on account of that exemption from
duty, been paid and made available to the Commission in due
time. Furthermore,
refused to provide the
detailed information relating to the actual imports which was
needed in order to calculate the default
interest and also
refused to pay the default interest.

the defendant

That exemption from duty constitutes a breach of Article 26 of
the EC Treaty as well as of Article 20 of the Community
Customs Code which cannot be justified by relying on Article
296 EC. Article 296 EC must, as an exception to the general
principle of levying duty, be interpreted strictly and, in accord-
ance with that strict interpretation, the Member State which
wishes to rely on that provision must establish the existence of
all the conditions for it to be applicable.

that Council Regulation No 150/2003 renders
The fact
possible, subject
the suspension of
to certain conditions,
import duties in respect of the specified goods after its coming
into force on 1 January 2003 provides no basis for justifying a
prior infringement of Community customs law: before the
coming into force of that Regulation there had been no suspen-
sion of the Common Customs Tariff, the duties had to be
levied and the appropriate own resources paid to the Com-
munity by 31 December 2002.

(1) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1
(2) OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1

Removal from the register of Case C-333/02 (1)

(2005/C 296/34)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-333/02: Italian Republic v Commission
of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.

the essential

security interests of

In the present case it means that it is for the German authori-
ties to establish the extent to which the levying of duties
jeopardises
the Federal
Republic of Germany. The Member State must also establish
that under the particular circumstances there was a concrete
threat
to state security. The German authorities, however,
provided no concrete information or arguments as to how and
why defence capabilities are impaired by the levy of certain
duties. Other Member States levy duties on such imports
without making the objection that this is a threat to their
national security. In regard to those Member States, the accep-
tance of that exemption would be unjust and irresponsible as
they would have to bear the financial consequences.

Removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (1)

(2005/C 296/35)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 24 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-101/03 (reference for a preliminary
ruling Tribunale di Milano, Sezione Prima Penale): in criminal
proceedings against Alfonso Galeazzo, Marco Banatti.

Nor can the taking into account of military secrecy, which has
been argued by the German authorities, justify such a breach of
Community law as the safeguarding of the confidentiality of
sensitive data on the part of the Community institutions is only
a procedural issue which cannot exempt the defendant from its
substantive duty to pay the appropriate own resources to the
Community.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.