Case C-42/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approval, distributive trades, domestic waste, free movement of goods, packaging product, principle of proportionality

C 74/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by refusing to establish and to make available
to the Commission the own resources due as a result of
imports of equipment and goods for specifically military use
in the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002
inclusive, and by refusing to pay the related default interest,
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No
1552/89, (1) in so far as the period 1 January 1998 to 30
May 2000 inclusive is concerned and, after the latter date,
the corresponding provisions of Regulation No
under
1150/2000; (2)

2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission believes that Article 296 EC does not allow a
Member State to exempt from customs duties imports of mili-
tary matériel,
in that the levying of those duties cannot be
considered to threaten that Member State's essential security
interests.

In the absence of concrete argument that might furnish specific
justification of the need to derogate from the customs rules in
order to protect the essential interests of the security of the
Portuguese Republic, the Commission takes the view that the
Portuguese authorities have failed to fulfil
their obligations
under Article 26 EC, Article 20 of the Community Customs
Code (3) and, in consequence, the Common Customs Tariff.

It is unacceptable that a Member State should avoid its obliga-
tions with regard to the joint and several co-financing of the
Community's budget by pleading the need to fund its military
expenditure at lower cost.

Where the rules laid down are not complied with, all the
Member States must bear the respective financial consequences,
for such a case gives rise to the application of the mechanism
in
which, by means of ‘GNP’ resources, offsets the shortfall
traditional own resources and VAT. Observance of the principle
of good financial management, and also of the fundamental
concepts of
the
Member States that caused the own resources made available to
fall short of the amount due should alone bear the conse-
quences for the Community budget resulting therefrom and,
therefore, pay the sums not collected by reason of their respec-
tive failures to fulfil obligations.

fairness and responsibility, demands that

The Portuguese authorities ought to have credited the customs
duties in the accounting ledgers in accordance with the rules
fixed by the Community Customs Code for the imports at
issue, and also to have established and made available to the
Commission the own resources so resulting pursuant to Arti-
cles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 and the corre-
sponding provisions of Regulation No 1150/2000. An infringe-
ment of the customs legislation having been committed, the
Community must be credited with a sum equivalent to the own
resources lacking. To that sum must be added the default
interest provided for by Article 11 of Regulation No
1150/2000.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989
implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the
Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000
implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the
Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130. p. 1).

(3) Approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003
suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equip-
ment (OJ 2003 L 25, p. 1).

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Belgium

(Case C-42/06)

(2006/C 74/15)

(Language of the case: French)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 27
January 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The failure at issue continued until 31 December 2002, seeing
that Regulation No 150/2003 (4) has been applicable since 1
January 2003. It is only from that date that that regulation has
made it possible to suspend, on certain conditions, customs
duties on the import of certain weapons and military equip-
ment.

— declare that, by imposing, in the Brussels-Capital Region, a
system of approval of natural and legal persons manufac-
the
turing and/or distributing refuse
detailed rules of which infringe the principle of proportion-
ality, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;

collection bags,

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/9

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

No Community harmonisation governs the approval of natural
and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse
collection bags.

legislation requiring the
In those circumstances, national
approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or
distributing refuse collection bags must be evaluated in the
light of Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty establishing the Euro-
pean Community.

According to the case-law of the Court of
Justice, a prior
authorisation procedure such as that laid down by Article 10a
of the Regulations of the Brussels-Capital Region of 15 July
1993 on refuse collection, can restrict the free movement of
goods.

To be justified with regard to the fundamental freedom of the
free movement of goods, such a prior authorisation procedure
must pursue a public interest purpose recognised by Com-
munity law and comply with the principle of proportionality,
that is to say be appropriate to ensure the attainment of the
objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary for its
attainment.

2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by L. Jelinek and W. Wils, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain
aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
society, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commis-
sion thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under the following provisions of that directive:
Article 3(3); Article 6(1) as regards the wording ‘any effective
technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in
the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she
is pursuing that objective’; Article 6(3); the first, fourth and
fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4); the second subparagraph
of Article 7(1); Article 7(2); Article 8(2) as regards the
wording ‘as well as of devices, products or components referred to
in Article 6(2)’; Article 8(3); Article 10(1); and Article 11(2);

2. order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 1 May 2004.

implementing the directive in

The Commission can conceive that an approval procedure
might be such as to pursue the public interest purposes of
protection of workers' health and of the environment.

(1) OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.

the Commission submits that,

However,
the
detailed rules of the approval procedure under Article 10a of
the Regulations do not comply with the principle of propor-
tionality because it is not easily accessible.

in this case,

Action brought on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Czech Republic

(Case C-46/06)

(2006/C 74/16)

(Language of the case: Czech)

(Case C-52/06)

(2006/C 74/17)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Czech Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the European Communities on 1
the Court of
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by F. Simonetti and S. Pardo Quintillán,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.