Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

12 . 11 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 316 / 13

Action brought on 26 September 1994 by the Portuguese

Republic against the Council of the European Union

( Case C-268 / 94 )

( 94 / C 316 / 22 )

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 September 1994 by the Portuguese
Republic, represented by Joao Mota de Campos and by Luis
Fernandes and Maria Luisa Duarte, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese
Embassy, 33 allee Scheffer .

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— declare the Council Decision 94 / 578 / EC of 18 July

1994 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation
Agreement between the European Community and the
Republic of India on Partnership and Development (*) to
be void, without prejudice, however, to the declaration
of annulment fully safeguarding, in accordance with
Article 174 of the EC Treaty, the effects in the
Community legal order of the Agreement concluded,

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the

costs .

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support :

The legal basis relied upon in the contested decision are
inadequate . Some of the fields covered by the Cooperation
Agreement between the European Community and the
Republic of India do not come within the traditional
framework of cooperation relations, and clearly exceed the
scope of the Community 's competences defined by the legal
basis relied upon ( Articles 113, 130 and 228 ( 3 ) of the EC
Treaty ). Thus :

— the action of the European Community in the sphere of

human rights and respect for democratic principles,
because it is characterized as an essential element on

which cooperation is contingent, depends on specific
powers which can only be conferred on the basis of
Article 235 of the EC Treaty,

— the cooperation provided for in the Agreement in the

fields of energy, tourism and culture also require
recourse to Article 235 of the EC Treaty as a basis for
approval of an international agreement which concerns
those matters,

— cooperation in the field of intellectual property, in

accordance with the principle of parallel competences,
covers matters, such as safeguards in judicial and
criminal matters, which still fall within the competences
of the Member States,

— cooperation on drugs trafficking does not fall within the

competences of the Community . Since this matter comes

under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union ( see
Article K.1.4 and 9 ), it is one which falls within the
competence of the Member States and is subject to an
intergovernmental decision procedure . The conclusion
of international agreements in this sphere requires action
on the part of all the Member States .

The provisions of Title XVII of Part III of the EC Treaty on
development cooperation have limited scope as legal basis
for cooperation agreements . This follows from :

— the ' complementary ' nature of Community policy in

relation to the policies of the Member States on
development cooperation ( Article 130u ),

— the fact that Member States retain their own

competences to conclude cooperation agreements
' within their respective spheres of competence '

( Article 130y ),

— the fact that the competence of the European
Community to conclude cooperation agreements is
defined in accordance with the principle of parallel
competences, so that Article 130y of the EC Treaty does
not constitute an adequate legal basis for international
relations in fields which do not fall within Community
competence in internal rules ( Declaration No 10 of the
Final Act of the Treaty on European Union ).

(!) OJ No L 223, 27 . 8 . 1994, p . 23 .

Action brought on 26 September 1994 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian
Republic

( Case C-270 / 94 )

( 94 / C 316 / 23 )

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1994 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg .

The applicant claims that the Court should :

1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 90 / 487 / EEC ( 2 ) of 17 September

1990 amending Directive 79 / 196 / EEC ( 2 ) on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States
concerning electrical equipment for use in potentially