Case C-461/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, Denmark, European Commission, Member States' contribution, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import, military equipment, own resources

C 48/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Denmark

(Case C-459/05)

(2006/C 48/34)

(Language of the case: French)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 23
December 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by H. Stovlbaek and D. Maidani, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities 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 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Direc-
tives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for
the recognition of professional qualifications and Council
Directives
78/686/EEC,
78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC,
80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and
93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible
for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon,
midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1), or,
in any
event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

77/453/EEC,

77/452/EEC,

2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/19 provides that Member States
are to bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with
that directive no later than 1 January 2003 and forthwith
inform the Commission thereof.

The Commission observes that the Kingdom of Belgium has
still not taken the measures necessary for that purpose or, in
any event, has failed to notify the Commission of such
measures.

(1) OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1.

(Case C-461/05)

(2006/C 48/35)

(Language of the case: Danish)

An action against
the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 December 2005 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by G. Wilms and H.C. Støvlbæk,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

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

1. declare that, by refusing to calculate and pay own resources
which were not collected by reason of the duty-free impor-
tation of military equipment, and by refusing to pay default
interest on the own resources which Denmark failed to
the Kingdom of
to the Commission,
make available
Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2,
9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 for the period up
to 31 May 2000 and under those articles of Regulation
No 1150/2000 in respect of the period after that date;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Denmark has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regu-
lation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 up to and including 31 May
2000 and under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 1150/2000 from 1 June 2000 to 31 December
2002 by reason of its failure to pay own resources in respect
of the importation of military equipment.

This breach of
the Treaty continued until Regulation (EC)
No 150/2003 entered into force, that is to say, until 1 January
2003. Under that regulation duty on imports of certain types
of military equipment may, subject to specified conditions, be
suspended from that date.

In the Commission's view, a Member State which has set aside
the Community-law rules on duty, resulting in a loss of own
resources, is under an obligation to pay to the Community an
amount corresponding to that loss. Default interest may also
have to be added to that amount pursuant to Article 11 of
Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 1150/2000.

The Danish authorities ought, under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11
of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 1150/2000, to have calculated and entered in
their accounts the amounts relating to the imports in question
within the prescribed period, in accordance with Article 217(1)
of the Community Customs Code, and made those amounts
available to the Commission.

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/19

The Commission finds that Denmark, although requested to do
so, failed to carry out the calculations necessary to establish
those amounts, which were not paid as own resources to the
Community by reason of the Treaty infringement in question
dating from the 1998 accounting year.

The Commission also finds that the amounts corresponding to
the customs debt in question were not made available to the
Commission before 31 March 2002.

The Commission accordingly finds that, by not establishing its
own resources in respect of imports of military equipment and
making those resources available to the Commission, Denmark
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11
of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and of Regulation
(EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000.

Action brought on 22 December 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

(Case C-463/05)

(2006/C 48/36)

(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
22 December 2005 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Dominique Maidani and Wouter
Wils, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Direc-
tive 2002/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements,
or in any event by not informing the Commission of those
measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 11 of Directive 2002/47 imposed an obligation on
Member States to bring into force the provisions necessary to
comply with that directive by 27 December 2003 at the latest
and immediately to inform the Commission of those provi-
sions.

The Commission finds that the Kingdom of the Netherlands
has not yet adopted those measures or in any event has not
notified it of them.

(1) OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43.

Appeal brought on 4 January 2006 by Groupe Danone
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October
2005 in Case T-38/02: Groupe Danone v Commission of
the European Communities

(Case C-3/06 P)

(2006/C 48/37)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October
2005 in Case T-38/02 Groupe Danone v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 4 January 2006 by Groupe Danone,
represented by A. Winckler and S. Sorinas, avocats.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in part, on the basis of Article 225(1) EC and
Article 61 of the Statute, the judgment given by the Court
of First Instance on 25 October 2005 in Case T-38/02
Groupe Danone v Commission of the European Communities in
so far as (i) it dismisses the plea that there was no basis for
taking into account the applicant's repeated infringement as
an aggravating circumstance and (ii) it varies the method of
calculation used by the Commission for the fine imposed;

— grant the forms of order sought by Groupe Danone at first
instance in relation to the plea that there was no basis for
taking into account the applicant's repeated infringement as
an aggravating circumstance and, consequently, on the
basis of Article 229 EC and Article 17 of Regulation No
17 (1), reduce the fine imposed by the Commission;

— reduce, on the basis of Article 229 EC and Article 17 of
Regulation No 17, the amount of the fine pro rata to the
decrease in the reduction for attenuating circumstances
decided on by the Court of First Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.