Case C-558/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Administrative Court (United Kingdom) made on 17 December 2007 — The Queen on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Limited, Hercules Incorporated v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Date: 2007-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, chemical product, environmental risk prevention, interpretation of the law, marketing standard, product safety, scientific report

C 51/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

The obligation to carry out the classification of special protec-
tion areas for birds (SPAs) was imposed on the Republic of
Poland at the time of its accession to the European Union.

In December 2004 an ornithological inventory was published
which detailed the situation of birds of European significance in
Poland (IBA 2004) and designated, on the basis of ornitholo-
gical criteria, 140 areas of crucial importance for the conserva-
tion of birds.

Of the areas included on the IBA 2004 list, 15 were not classi-
fied by the Republic of Poland as SPAs, notwithstanding the fact
that
the Polish authorities failed to produce any scientific
evidence to justify that failure to designate them.

Furthermore, the areas of 8 SPAs are much smaller than their
equivalents on the IBA 2004 inventory, with the result that
outside their limits there are areas which, according to IBA
2004, would appear to be most suitable for the conservation of
bird species.

comply with its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on
the common system of value added tax (1);

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Ireland, the State and local authorities are treated as taxable
persons only in so far as a specific order to that effect has been
made by the Minister for Finance. In the Commission's view
that situation is contrary to the scheme laid down in Article 13
of the VAT directive in several respects. First, no provision is
made for the taxation of public bodies where they act other
than in their capacity as public authorities. Secondly, no general
provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they
act in their capacity as public authorities but engage in an
economic activity whose non-taxation would result in a signifi-
cant distortion of competition. The taxation of public bodies is
wholly at the discretion of the Minister for Finance; no criteria
for his decision are contained in the relevant provisions. Thirdly,
no provision is made for taxation of the activities listed in
Annex I to the VAT directive.

In addition, in September 2007 the Polish authorities, without
notifying the Commission, reduced the areas of 5 designated
SPAs in a manner impacting significantly on bird conservation.

(1) OJ L 347, p. 1.

(1) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-554/07)

(2008/C 51/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Administrative Court
(United Kingdom) made on 17 December 2007 — The
Queen on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG,
Lake
Limited, Hercules
and Minerals
Incorporated v Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs

Chemicals

(Case C-558/07)

(2008/C 51/60)

Language of the case: English

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

Referring court

Defendant: Ireland

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Administrative
Court

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Parties to the main proceedings

— declare that by failing to transpose correctly into Irish legis-
lation Article 13 of Directive 2006/112 (including Annex I
to the directive) and consequently by excluding from the
scope of the tax all economic activities in which the State,
local authorities and other bodies governed by public law
engage, with certain limited exceptions, Ireland has failed to

Applicants: S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and
Minerals Limited, Hercules Incorporated

Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/37

Questions referred

1. In light of the fact that the registration requirements in Title II
of the REACH Regulation (1) do not apply to polymers by
virtue of Article 2(9) of the Regulation, does the reference to
‘monomer substances’ in Article 6(3) mean:

menting the Kyoto Protocol (1) in Malta in conjunction with
Articles 2 to 7 of Commission Decision 166/2005/EC of
10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision
280/2004/EC, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 3(1) of the Decision.

(a) reacted monomers, that is monomers which have reacted
they are indissociable from the

such that

together
polymer of which they form part;

(b) unreacted monomers, that is monomers that are residual
to the polymerisation process and which retain their
own chemical identities and properties separate from the
polymer after that process is complete; or

(c) both reacted and unreacted monomers?

2. If the answer to question 1 is either (a) or (c), is the applica-
tion of Article 6(3) to manufacturers or importers of poly-
mers unlawful by reason that the requirements are irrational,
discriminatory or disproportionate?

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 3(1) of decision No 280/2004/EC the
Member States shall, for the assessment of actual progress and
to enable the preparation of annual reports by the Community,
in accordance with obligations under the UNFCCC and the
Kyoto protocol, provide the Commission with certain informa-
tion regarding greenhouse gas emissions by 15 January each
year.

In view of the fact that the Republic of Malta has not provided
the Commission with the information due on 15 January 2006
the Commission is obliged to assume that the Maltese authori-
ties have failed to meet their obligations under Article 3(1) of
the decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration,
Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH),
establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive
1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council
Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC,
93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, p. 1)

(1) OJ L 49, p. 1.

Action brought on 10 January 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Malta

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Malta

(Case C-563/07)

(2008/C 51/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(Case C-11/08)

(2008/C 51/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Simonsson, Agent)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Malta

Defendant: Republic of Malta

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to provide the information necessary
to comply with Decision No. 280/2004/EC (‘the Decision’)
of
the Council of
11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring
imple-
Community Greenhouse gas emissions and for

the European Parliament

and of

— declare that, by providing in its national law that inspectors
who do not fulfil the criteria in Annex VII of Council Direc-
tive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of
shipping (1) are accepted if they are employed by the compe-
tent authority for port State control on 1 May 2004, the
Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 12(1) and Annex VII of the Directive;

— order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.