Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

1.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 131/9

**Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of** **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de**
**the European Communities against the French Republic** **cassation, chambre commerciale, financiere et econo-**
**mique by judgment of that Court of 26 March 2002 in the**
**case of Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects**
**(Case C-114/02)** **against Rioglass SA and Transremar SL**

**(Case C-115/02)**
(2002/C 131/15)

(2002/C 131/16)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation,
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities, chambre commerciale, financiere et economique (Court of
represented by L. Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of
service in Luxembourg. 26 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Administration
des Douanes et Droits Indirects against Rioglass SA and
Transremar SL on the following question:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
Must Article 30 of the EC Treaty, (now, after amendment,
Article 28 EC) be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
— the implementation, pursuant to the Code de la Propriété
declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
Intellectuelle, of procedures for the detention by the customs
and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State
with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and
of the European Community which are intended, following
of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
their transit through French territory, to be placed on the
placing of biocidal products on the market( [1] ), or at any
market in a non-member country, in the present case Poland?
rate by failing to communicate the same, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

—
order the French Republic to pay the costs.

**Action brought on 3 April 2002 by the Commission of**
**the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic**

**(Case C-119/02)**
_Pleas in law and main arguments_

(2002/C 131/17)

The Commission claims that only a small part of Directive
98/8/EC has been transposed. France has communicated An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
transposition measures in respect of Article 3(1), (2), (3) and the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 April
(6) and Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the directive. The obligations 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
imposed by the directive which required to be transposed but represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Minas Konstantinhave not been transposed or, at any rate, have not been idis, Legal Advisers.
communicated, therefore include transposition measures in
respect of Article 3(4), (5) and (7) and Articles 4, 8, 11, 12, 14,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 26 of the directive. The The Commission claims that the Court should:
time-limit for transposition expired on 13 May 2000.

—
declare that, by not adopting measures to instal a
collecting system for urban waste water from the area of
Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from
that area to more stringent secondary treatment before
( [1] ) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
its discharge into the ‘sensitive area’ of the Bay of Elefsina,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 3(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/
271/EEC( [1] ) concerning urban waste-water treatment, as
amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC( [2] ) of