Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 71/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.3.2004

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The Spanish authorities have not officially designated as
bathing areas, the beaches Viela/A Videira, Niño do Corvo and
Canabal in the municipality of Moaña (Pontevedra), in spite of
the frequent presence of bathers on those beaches. In the
absence of a ban on bathing, the presence of bathers requires
the designation of those beaches as bathing waters, for the
purpose of Directive 76/160. In the absence of such a
designation, those three beaches have not been subject to the
surveillance required by the Directive.

The waters of the Ría de Vigo do not conform to the guideline
values, laid down by Directive 79/923, for faecal coliforms, in
spite of the fact that nearly all of those waters have been
designated by the Spanish authorities as shellfish waters.
Accordingly, Article 5 of that directive requires the establishment of a programme to reduce pollution in order to ensure
that the designated waters conform to the values fixed in the
Annex to Directive 79/923. However, the pollution-reduction
programme for the Ría de Vigo has not been notified to the
Commission.

( [1] ) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1; Spanish Special Edition 15/01, p. 133.
( [2] ) OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47; Spanish Special Edition 15/02, p. 156.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal De**
**Grand Instance de Paris (Third Chamber, Second Division)**
**by order of that Court of 5 December 2003 in the case of**
**Société TOD’S SpA (formerly named EMA Srl) and SARL**
**TOD’S France formerly named DEVA France against S.A.**
**Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté Technisynthese**

**(Case C-28/04)**

(2004/C 71/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal De Grand
Instance de Paris (Paris Regional Court) of 5 December 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 28 January 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Société TOD’S SpA (formerly
named EMA Srl) and SARL TOD’S France formerly named
DEVA France against S.A. Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté
Technisynthese, on the following question:

Does Article 12 of the EC Treaty, which lays down the general
principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality,
mean that the right of an author to claim in a Member State
the copyright protection afforded by the law of that State may
not be subject to a distinction based on the country of origin
of the work?

**Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Republic of**
**Austria**

**(Case C-29/04)**

(2004/C 71/19)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts ( [1] ), in that award of the
refuse disposal contract entered into by the town of
Mödling failed to comply with the procedures and
advertising rules laid down in Article 8, in conjunction
with Article 11(1) and Article 15(2), of that directive;

2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

On 21 May 1999, the municipality of Mödling decided to use
its own vehicle to carry out its statutory duties relating to
refuse disposal. A company, AbfallGmbH, was incorporated
for this purpose. The whole of the company’s share capital
was held by one member, namely the municipality of Mödling.
The contract for disposal, under which the municipality of
Mödling transferred exclusive responsibility for the collection
and treatment of waste to AbfallGmbH, was entered into on
15 September 1999. The contract was entered into for an
unlimited period and came into force with retrospective effect
on 1 July 1999. Two weeks after the conclusion of the contract
for refuse disposal, the town council of the municipality of
Mödling decided that the municipality of Mödling, as sole
member of AbfallGmbH, should transfer 49 % of its shares to
a private undertaking.

The Republic of Austria is of the opinion that the provisions
of Directive 92/50/EEC do not apply to the award of the waste
disposal contract to AbfallGmbH, as it involved a so-called ‘inhouse’ transaction.