Case C-556/07: Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2007-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fishing controls, fishing net, fishing regulations, fishing rights

C 37/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

2.

in the alternative, by refusing to reinterpret the principle of
LPP in view of the significant developments in the legal land-
scape, violated the general principles of protection of the
rights of defence and of legal certainty (section C); and

3.

in the further alternative, violated Article 5 EC (principle of
attribution of competence) and the principle of national
procedural autonomy (section D).

sure of the registered reference number or numbers of the
location of the release?

(1) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15.
(2) Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on public access to environmental information
and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

(1) Case 155/79, (1982) p. 1575.

Action brought on 13 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v French Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
(France) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Commune de
Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre

(Case C-552/07)

(2008/C 37/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-556/07)

(2008/C 37/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Commune de Sausheim

Respondent: Pierre Azelvandre

Questions referred

1. Must ‘the location where the release’ of genetically modified
organisms ‘will be carried out’ which, under Article 19 of
Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modi-
fied organisms (1), may not be kept confidential, mean the
registered parcel of land or a larger geographical area corre-
sponding either to the commune in which the release occurs
or to an even greater area such as a Canton or Department?

2. If the location is to be understood as requiring designation
of the registered parcel of land, can an exception relating to
the protection of public order or other confidential matters
protected by law preclude, on the basis of Article 95 of the
Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now
the European [Union], or of Directive 2003/4/EC (2) of
28 January 2003 on public access to environmental informa-
tion or of a general principle of Community law, the disclo-

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Nolin, M. van Heezik, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing sufficiently to monitor, inspect and
supervise fishing activities, in particular in the light of the
prohibition of drift nets for the capture of certain species,
and by not ensuring that appropriate measures against those
responsible for infringements of the Community legislation
on the use of drift nets were taken, the French Republic
failed in its obligations under Articles 2 and 31(1) and (2) of
Regulation No 2847/1993 (1) and Articles 23(1) and (2),
24 and 25(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2371/2002 (2);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission alleges that the defendant applied
the Community legislation on fisheries incorrectly. That incor-
rect application consists, first, in the fact that the French autho-
rities did not consider a ‘thonaille’ (a tuna gillnet) to be a drag
net although, by reason of
the
thonaille is one and, as such, is prohibited by Community legis-
lation. The fact that the thonaille can be stabilised with the aid
of a floating anchor is, in that regard, irrelevant inasmuch as
that stabilisation does not imply that the thonaille cannot drift
with sea currents or the wind, but only that it is held by floats
and weights in order to optimise its efficiency and to prevent it
lying horizontally just below the surface.

its technical characteristics,

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/21

The failure to fulfil obligations consists, second, in the lack of
an effective monitoring system in order to enforce the ban on
drift nets for the capture of certain species and the lack of
follow-up in the pursuit of breaches established. The monitoring
solely concerns whether national legislation, which is more flex-
ible than the Community legislation, is complied with and the
penalties imposed for breach of the legislation are light and of
little dissuasive effect.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 estab-
lishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy
(OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on
the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-559/07)

(2008/C 37/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and M.van Beek)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare

different

that, by maintaining in force
ages

the provisions
concerning
different
and
retirement
minimum-service requirements for men and women under
the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141
of the EC Treaty;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The Commission, after examining the provisions in force of
the Greek Civil and Military Pensions Code, found that they
provide that women are entitled to a retirement pension at a
different age from men and under different conditions
regarding the minimum period of service required.

2. In the light of the Court of Justice's case-law, the Commis-
sion submits that the pensions in question, which are paid
by an employer to a former worker as a consequence of the
employment
relationship between them, constitute pay
within the meaning of Article 141 EC. Furthermore, because
of the particular nature of the pension systems in question,
under which pensions depend on the period of service
completed and on the worker's salary prior to grant of a
pension, the persons drawing a pension constitute,
in the
Commission's view, ‘a particular category of workers’, while
the method of financing and managing the pension system
does not constitute a decisive factor for the application of
Article 141 EC.

3. Also,

in the Commission's submission, the conditions for
application of Article 141(4) EC, which concerns providing
for specific advantages to make it easier for the underrepre-
sented sex to pursue a vocational activity, are not met.

In this instance, the provisions in question do not help to
correct the problems which women may face in their profes-
sional careers but, on the contrary, facilitate their withdrawal
from the labour market.

4. Furthermore, the justification pleaded, regarding the State
mechanism being caused to malfunction and the consequent
laying down of transitional provisions, is not persuasive in
the Commission's view because,
first, economic conse-
quences which could result for a Member State do not justify
in themselves the temporal restriction of the application of
rules of Community law and, second, the Hellenic Republic
has not in practice demonstrated the existence and precise
nature of the malfunctioning pleaded.

5. Consequently,

the Commission considers that, by main-
taining in force provisions concerning different retirement
ages and different minimum-service requirements for men
and women under the Greek Civil and Military Pensions
Code, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 141 EC.