Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 19/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25.1.2003

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

—
Declare that, by failing to apply the provisions on the
public lending right set out in Directive 92/100/EEC of
19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
intellectual property, ( [1] ) the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of
that Directive;

—
Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Although Belgium has provided for a right to remuneration
for authors in those cases in which the latter cannot prohibit
lending, none of the implementing measures provided for by
Article 63 of the Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright
and related rights has been adopted and the amount of
remuneration has therefore never been fixed.

The Belgian authorities err in invoking difficulties in distinguishing the categories of establishments which may be
exempted under Article 5(3) of the Directive. If the circumstances prevailing in the Member State in question do not
make it possible to draw a valid distinction between categories
of establishments, the solution must lie in imposing the
obligation to pay the remuneration in question on all of the
establishments concerned.

( [1] ) OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.

**Action brought on 2 December 2002 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against Ireland**

**(Case C-436/02)**

(2003/C 19/41)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 2 December 2002 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Knut Simonsson, acting as agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1) declare that, by failing to carry out an annual total
number of inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of
the number of individual ships which entered its ports

during the years 1999 and 2000, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 5 (1) of Directive 95/
21/EC of 19 June 1995 on port State control of
shipping( [1] );

2) order Ireland to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Article 5(1) of Directive 95/21/EC, in its wording at the
material time, imposes an obligation on each Member State to
inspect at least 25 % of the number of individual foreign ships
which enter its ports in a given year. It is clear from the facts
that Ireland failed to fulfil this obligation for the years
1999 and 2000 because in those years it inspected 7,5 % and
14,6 % respectively of the number of ships that entered its
ports.

( [1] ) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention
and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
(OJ L 157, 07.07.1995, p. 1).

**Action brought on 4 December 2002 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the French Republic**

**(Case C-439/02)**

(2003/C 19/42)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 December
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to carry out a number of annual
inspections corresponding to at least 25 % of the number
of individual vessels entering its ports in 1999 and 2000,
the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
concerning port State control ( [1] );

2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

25.1.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/25

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

By inspecting 14,1 % (in 1999) and 12,2 % (in 2000) of vessels
which entered its ports, France has inspected an insufficient
number of vessels entering its ports. Lack of staff cannot justify
failure to fulfil obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 95/
21/EC.

( [1] ) OJ Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the
enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and
sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States,
of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention
and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control)
(OJ 1995 L 157, p. 1).

**Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Italian Republic**

**(Case C-440/02)**

(2003/C 19/43)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Claudio Loggi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 1999/42/EC( [1] ) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism
for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the
professional activities covered by the Directiveson liberalisation and transitional measures and supplementing the
general systems for the recognition of qualifications, or,
in any event, by failing to communicate them, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
directive; and

—
Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 31 July 2001
without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
referred to in the Commission’s application.

( [1] ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État**
**by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of**
**Caixa Bank France against Ministère de l’économie, des**
**finances et de l’industrie**

**(Case C-442/02)**

(2003/C 19/44)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État of
6 November 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caixa Bank
France against Ministère de l’économie, des finances et de
l’industrie on the following questions:

1. As Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 20 March 2000 ( [1] ) is silent on the point,
does the prohibition by a Member State of banking
institutions duly established inits territory from remunerating sight accounts and other repayable funds constitute
an obstacle to freedom of establishment?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
what kind of reasons of the public interest might in an
appropriate case be relied on to justify such an obstacle?

( [1] ) Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 March 2000 relating to the taking up and pursuit
of the business of credit institutions (OJ L 126 of 26.05.2000,
p. 1).