Case C-331/07: Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal nutrition, health care profession, professional qualifications, veterinary inspection, veterinary legislation

C 247/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

In light of the Court's case-law (Case C-463/00 Commission v
Spain [2003] ECR I-4581; Case C-483/99 Commission v France
[2002] ECR I-4781; Case C-503/99 Commission v Belgium
[2002] ECR I-4809, and Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-293/04
Commission v Netherlands [2006] ECR I-9141), the Commission
considers therefore that the legislation in question goes beyond
what is necessary in order to safeguard the public interests
provided for by Article 1.2 of the Decree of 10 June 2004 and
that it is contrary to both Article 56 EC and Article 43 EC. In
the Commission's view, for the sectors thus regulated, such as
energy, gas or telecommunications, the aim of protecting the
State's vital interests may be attained by adopting less restrictive
as Directive
measures
2003/54/EC (1)
and Directive 2003/55/EC (2) or Directive
2002/21/EC (3) and Directives 2002/19/EC (4), 2002/20/EC (5),
2002/22/CE (6) and 2002/58/EC (7).
is the Commission's
opinion, furthermore, that those acts guarantee the safeguarding
of national minimum provisions and that there is no causal link
between the need to ensure power supplies, the provision of
public services and the supervision of the ownership structure
or of the management of the undertaking.

regulating

activities,

those

such

It

(1) OJ L 176, p. 37.
(2) OJ L 176, p. 57.
(3) OJ L 108, p. 33.
(4) OJ L 108, p. 7.
(5) OJ L 108, p. 21.
(6) OJ L 108, p. 51.
(7) OJ L 201, p. 37.

Action brought on 16 July 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-331/07)

(2007/C 247/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Erlbacher)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— a declaration that, by not having adopted all the measures
necessary to remedy the serious shortage of staff in the
services responsible for veterinary controls in Greece, which
is likely to undermine the correct and effective application

the Community veterinary legislation,

of
the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that legisla-
tion

— an order that the Hellenic Republic pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the Commission asks the Court to find that by
not having adopted the legal and administrative measures
necessary first to comply with the obligation laid down by
Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official
controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance
with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules
(OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1 as amended in OJ 2004 L 191, p. 1)
(‘Regulation 882/2004’) and the obligation to have a sufficient
number of properly qualified and experienced staff to be able
effectively to carry out the official controls, and secondly to
comply with the obligation laid down by the provisions of the
Community veterinary legislation relating to the financing of
the staff necessary to carry out
the prescribed veterinary
controls, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that legislation.

The Commission states that the Community veterinary legisla-
tion requires Member States to ensure that there are carried out
a substantial number of checks and controls relating to the
application of the prescribed conditions and requirements. Thus,
certain provisions,
in particular Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation
882/2004, lay down that Member States must have a sufficient
number of properly qualified and experienced staff to be able to
carry out the veterinary controls. Further, many of those provi-
sions either expressly provide that certain veterinary controls —
the procedures for implementation of which are more or less
detailed — must be carried out, or define the conditions and
specifications which presuppose the existence of veterinary
controls.

inspection reports
However, relying on a large number of
the
submitted by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of
Commission,
the
the Commission states that on expiry of
period specified in the reasoned opinion and beyond that date,
and despite certain efforts of the Greek authorities, the Hellenic
Republic has not adopted all the measures necessary to remedy
the failings for which it has been criticised. Since 1998, the FVO
has made a large number of inspection visits to Greece, and has
found a serious shortage of staff in the services responsible for
carrying out the official controls prescribed by the Community
legislation, at all levels of administration. The shortage discov-
ered was such that, according to the Commission experts, the
official controls which are essential to the effective application
the Community legislation relating to animal protection
of
could not be carried out, the programmes to combat and eradi-
cate animal diseases have not been completed, and the rules
relating to animal welfare have not been complied with.

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/5

The majority of the recommendations addressed to the Greek
authorities have been implemented either not at all or inade-
quately. Further, the inspection reports disclose a very worrying
picture of the official controls carried out in Greece.

a

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 19 July
2007 — Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH &
für
Co. KG v Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt

ruling

privaten Rundfunk

(Case C-336/07)

(2007/C 247/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Service Directive 2002/22/EC if a cable network operator is
forced to provide access to television programmes on its
analogue cable networks even in those areas of the Land in
which the cable end-user would in any event be in a position
to receive the same television programmes
terrestrially
according to the DVB-T standard by means of a terrestrial
antenna and a decoder?

3. Are ‘television … services’ within the meaning of the first
sentence of Article 31(1) of
the Universal Service Direc-
tive 2002/22/EC to be interpreted as including providers of
media services or telemedia, for example teleshopping?

4. Is a provision like Paragraph 37(2) of the Niedersächsisches
Mediengesetz compatible with Article 31(1) of the Universal
Service Directive 2002/22/EC if, in the event of a shortage of
channels, the competent national authority has to establish
an order of priority of applicants which results in full use of
the channels available to the cable network operator?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
lodged on 25 July 2007 —
d'Appello di Torino (Italy)
Italia Srl v Bayerischer
and Bavaria
Bavaria N.V.

Brauerbund e.V

(Case C-343/07)

(2007/C 247/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Applicant: Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH &
Co. KG

Defendant: Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt
Rundfunk

für privaten

Referring court

Interveners: Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Hamburg, and 39 others

Corte d'Appello di Torino

Questions referred

Parties to the main proceedings

1. Is a provision like Paragraph 37(1) of the Niedersächsisches
Mediengesetz (Lower Saxony Law on the Media) compatible
with Article 31(1) of
the Universal Service Directive
2002/22/EC if a cable network operator is forced to provide
access, on more than half of
the channels permanently
usable for analogue broadcasting which are available on its
networks, to programmes which — although they do not
cover the whole of the Land of Lower Saxony — are already
being broadcast terrestrially according to the DVB-T stand-
ard?

2. Is a provision like Paragraph 37(1) of the Niedersächsisches
Mediengesetz compatible with Article 31(1) of the Universal

Applicants: Bavaria N.V. and Bavaria Italia Srl

Defendant: Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V

Questions referred

1. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 (1) of 28 June
2001 invalid, possibly as a consequence of the invalidity of
other acts, in light of the following: