Case C-327/08: Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2008-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, complaint to the Commission, deadline for payment, legislation, market organisation, regulation of telecommunications, signature of an agreement

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/15

Order of
the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Panevėžio
apygardos teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — Criminal
proceedings against Edgar Babanov

Appeal brought on 21 February 2008 by Athanasios
Pitsiorlas against
the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2007
in Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04 Athanasios Pitsiorlas v
Council of the European Union and European Central Bank

the judgment of

(Case C-207/08) (1)

(First paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure
— Agriculture — Free movement of goods — National legis-
lation prohibiting the cultivation of any type of hemp)

(2008/C 285/24)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

(Case C-84/08 P)

(2008/C 285/25)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Panevėžio apygardos teismas

Criminal proceedings against

Edgar Babanov

Action

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Panevėžio apygardos
teismas — Compatibility with the law of the European Union of
national legislation providing for criminal liability for cultivating
any type of hemp — Power of a court to apply national legisla-
tion when the hemp content of active substances does not
exceed a certain threshold

Parties

Appellant: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (represented by: D. Papafilippou,
dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
European Central Bank

By order of 3 July 2008, the Court of Justice (Second
Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ruled that Athanasios
Pitsiorlas had to bear the costs.

Operative part of the judgment

Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

for

and

farmers

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September
2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under
the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes
(EEC)
No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC)
(EC)
No 1454/2001,
No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and
(EC) No 2529/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that
it
precludes national legislation which has the effect of prohibiting the
cultivation and possession of hemp grown for fibre covered by that
regulation.

amending Regulations

(EC) No 1251/1999,

(EC) 1868/94,

2. Community law precludes the court of a Member State from
applying national
to Regulation
No 1782/2003, has the effect of prohibiting the cultivation and
possession of hemp grown for fibre covered by that regulation.

legislation which,

contrary

(Case C-327/08)

(2008/C 285/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(1) OJ C 209 of 15.8.2008.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and D. Kukovec, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

C 285/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

Form of order sought

— Declare that:

by adopting and maintaining in force Article 44-1 of Decree
No 2005-1308 of 20 October 2005, Article 46-1 of Decree
No 2005-1742 of 30 December 2005 and Article 80-1-1
in so far as
of Decree No 2006-975 of 1 August 2006,
those provisions provide for the possibility for contracting
authorities and/or contracting entities to reduce the reason-
able time-limit to be complied with between the notice of
tender and the signature of the contract without any limit in
time and without any objective condition laid down
previously in the national legislation,

and

by adopting and maintaining in force Article 144-1 of the
new Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Decree
No 2005-1308 of 20 October 2005, in so far as that provi-
sion provides for a time-limit of 10 days for the response
from the contracting authority and/or the contracting entity
concerned prohibiting any precontractual interim measures
before that response and without that time period having
any suspensory effect on the time-limit to be complied with
between the notice of
the
contract,

tender and the signature of

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Directive 89/665/EEC (1) and Directive 92/13/EEC (2), as
interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-81/98 Alcatel
and Case C-212/02 Commission v Austria and, more specifi-
cally, Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665/EEC and Article 2(1)
of Directive 92/13/EEC.

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

signature of the relevant contract. Since an unsuccessful tenderer
may not bring an action during the time for responding to the
formal notice, equivalent to 10 days, a response given by the
contracting authority upon expiry of that time-limit deprives
the unsuccessful tenderer of all effective legal remedies, because
by that time the contract will have already been signed.

(1) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
to the application of review procedures to the award of public
supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as
amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating
to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the appli-
cation of Community rules on the procurement procedures of enti-
ties operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).

Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-333/08)

(2008/C 285/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

The Commission puts forward two pleas in law in support of
its action.

Defendant: French Republic

in urgent cases,

the minimum time-limit

By its first plea, the Commission criticises the defendant for
having allowed contracting authorities,
to
to be
reduce to under 10 days
complied with between the notice of award of tender to all
tenderers and the signature of
the relevant contract. The
urgency referred to in the French legislation is left to the discre-
tion of the contracting authority, without any objective condi-
tion being required. However, that same legislation contains no
guarantee that the number of days by which the time-limit is
reduced will be brought to the attention of the tenderers, which
could
precontractual
tenderers
proceedings against a decision to award a contract at a stage
when the relevant contract has already been signed. Such a
situation is clearly contrary to the objective pursued by Direc-
tives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC, supported by the Court's
case-law, consisting in putting in place effective and rapid reme-
dies targeting unlawful decisions by contracting authorities at a
stage when there is still time to correct violations.

bringing

those

lead

to

By its second plea, the Commission also criticises the defendant
for having disregarded the practical effectiveness of those direc-
tives by providing in the French legislation for a compulsory
preliminary phase of formal notice to the contracting authority,
which does not have a suspensory effect on the time-limit to be
complied with between the notice of award of contract and the

Form of order sought

— declare that, by providing, in respect of technological adju-
vants and foodstuffs in the preparation of which were used
technological adjuvants originating from other Member
States where they were lawfully manufactured and/or placed
on the market, for a scheme of prior authorisation which
does not comply with the principle of proportionality, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 28 EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains of the restrictions on
trade resulting from the French legislation relating to technolo-
gical adjuvants. By introducing a system of prior authorisation
for those products and for foodstuffs in the preparation of
which were used technological adjuvants originating from other
Member States where they were lawfully manufactured and/or
placed on the market, that legislation makes the marketing of
those foodstuffs and adjuvants more onerous and costly, thereby
hindering intra-Community trade.