Case C-470/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus, Finland) — AGM-COS.MET Srl v Suomen valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen (Directive 98/37/EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Machinery presumed to comply with Directive 98/37/EC — Criticism expressed publicly by a State official)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, civil service, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, machinery, press release, product safety

C 96/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
käräjäoikeus, Finland) — AGM-COS.MET Srl v Suomen
valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen

(Case C-470/03) (1)

(Directive 98/37/EC — Measures having equivalent effect —
Machinery presumed to comply with Directive 98/37/EC —
Criticism expressed publicly by a State official)

persons to whom those statements are addressed can reasonably
suppose, in the given context, that they are positions taken by the
official with the authority of his office. To the extent that they are
attributable to the State,
statements by an official describing
machinery certified as conforming to Directive 98/37/EC of the
European Parliament and the Council of 22 June 1998 on the
approximation of
the Member States relating to
machinery as contrary to the relevant harmonised standard and
dangerous thus constitute a breach of Article 4(1) of that directive.

the laws of

(2007/C 96/02)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Tampereen käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGM-COS.MET Srl

Defendants: Suomen valtio, Tarmo Lehtinen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tampereen käräjäoikeus
— Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Directive 98/37/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to machinery (OJ 1998 L 207, p. 1) — Measures having equiva-
lent effect — Criticism of car lifts imported from another
Member State expressed in public by a State official — Machines
not compliant with a harmonised standard — Responsibility of
the State for the actions of an official

Operative part of the judgment

1. Statements which, by reason of their form and circumstances, give
the persons to whom they are addressed the impression that they
are official positions taken by the State, not personal opinions of
the official, are attributable to the State. The decisive factor for the
statements of an official to be attributed to the State is whether the

2. In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a
breach of Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 occasioned by the
conduct of an official, in so far as it is attributable to the official's
Member State, cannot be justified either on the basis of the objec-
tive of protection of health or on the basis of the freedom of expres-
sion of officials.

3. Article 4(1) of Directive 98/37 must be interpreted as meaning
that, first, it confers rights on individuals and, second, it leaves the
Member States no discretion in this case as regards machinery that
complies with the directive or is presumed to do so. A failure to
comply with that provision as a result of statements made by an
official, assuming that they are attributable to the Member State,
constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of Community law for the
Member State to incur liability.

4. Community law does not preclude specific conditions from being
laid down by the domestic law of a Member State with reference to
compensation for damage other than damage to persons or prop-
erty, provided that those conditions are not framed in such a way as
to make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to obtain
compensation for loss or damage resulting from a breach of Com-
munity law.

5. In the event of a breach of Community law, Community law does
not preclude an official from being held liable in addition to the
Member State, but does not require this.

(1) OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.