CELEX: C2001/004/04
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-418/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

C 4/2                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.1.2001
Action brought on 20 October 2000 by the Commission                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                  Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of that
                          lic of Germany                                court of 19 September 2000 in the cases of Giovanni
                                                                        Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione Frodi
                                                                        and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Politiche
                         (Case C-389/00)                                                               Agricole
                           (2001/C 4/02)
                                                                                        (Cases C-390/00 and C-391/00)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                                        (2001/C 4/03)
ties on 20 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service,            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Bari,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano (Bari District Court, Rutigliano
                                                                        Division) of 19 September 2000, received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 24 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione
                                                                        Frodi and Giovanni Colapietro against Ministero per le Poli-
                                                                        tiche Agricole on the following questions:
1.    Declare that, by adopting the AbfalIverbringungsgesetz
      (Law on the Transfer of Waste) of 30 September 1994,
      establishing a solidarity fund for the return of waste, the       (1) Is Law No 460 of 1987, Article 4 of which provides for
      Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations               penalties in respect of provisions of Community law laid
      under Articles 23 and 25 EC;                                            down by regulations which have now been repealed, (1)
                                                                              applicable for the purposes of enforcing rules laid down
                                                                              in new regulations?
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                        (2) Is the administrative penalty at issue disproportionate in
                                                                              effect to the offence, contrary to the principle of fair
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               punishment?
The Commission considers that the obligation on exporters of            (1) With reference, in particular, to Council Regulation No 822/87 of
waste under the German Abfallverbringungsgesetz to pay                      16 March 1987 (OJ L 84 of 27.3.1987, p. 1).
membership contributions to the solidarity fund is incompat-
ible with Community law in so far as the solidarity fund
assumes the costs of reimporting waste (including its disposal
and recycling) in the cases referred to in Articles 25 and 26 of
Council Regulation 259/93, (1) which are imposed on the
exporting Member State in the event of it being impracticable
to charge the notifier (Article 33(2) of Regulation 259/93). To
that extent, the contribution constitutes a burden imposed
unilaterally on domestic goods on account of their crossing
the frontier. Contrary to the defendant’s view, the relevant part
of the contribution cannot be regarded as appropriate payment           Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
for a service actually and individually provided by the adminis-        mission of the European Communities against the French
tration to an economic operator. The financing of the second-                                         Republic
ary State liability expressly provided for in Article 33(2) of
Regulation No 259/93 cannot be described as a ‘particular or
individual advantage’.                                                                            (Case C-418/00)
                                                                                                    (2001/C 4/04)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
    supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and
    out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1), amended         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
    by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2408/98 of 6 November              Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
    1998 (OJ 1998 L 298, p. 19).                                        the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
                                                                        Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                        Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.1.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 4/3
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Action brought on 13 November 2000 by the Com-
the Court of Justice should:                                              mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                                      Republic
1.    Declare that
      —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules                                (Case C-419/00)
            for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
            for the fishing years 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994;
                                                                                                   (2001/C 4/05)
      —     by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
            rules on the conservation of species through suf-
            ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
            inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
            and recordal of catches;
                                                                          Court of Justice on 13 November 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities, represented by T. Van Rijn, Legal
      —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels           Adviser, and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
            flying the French flag or registered in France when           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
            the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-             C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
            ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting                Kirchberg.
            fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
            had been exceeded by far, in the 1991, 1992,
            1993 and 1994 fishing years;
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court of Justice should:
      —     by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
            ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
            for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
            the 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 fishing years;                  1.   Declare that
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 —    by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules
      under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, (1)                         for the utilization of the quotas allocated to them
      Article 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC)                               for the fishing years 1995 and 1996;
      No 2241/87, (2) Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of
      Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3) and Article 9(2) of
      Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (4).
                                                                               —    by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
                                                                                    rules on the conservation of species through suf-
2.    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                   ficient monitoring of fishing activities, appropriate
                                                                                    inspection of the fishing fleet and of catches landed
                                                                                    and recordal of catches;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               —    by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            flying the French flag or registered in France when
relied upon in Case C-333/99 (5) concerning the same infringe-                      the catches taken had been deemed to have exhaus-
ments in 1988 and 1990.                                                             ted the corresponding quota and by prohibiting
                                                                                    fishing on a contingent basis even though the quota
                                                                                    had been exceeded by far, in the 1995 and 1996
                                                                                    fishing years;
(1) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207 of 29.07.1987, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993                     —    by failing to take criminal or administrative proceed-
    establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries                ings against any skipper or other persons responsible
    policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).                                                   for fishing after the prohibition thereof, as regards
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992                         the 1995 and 1996 fishing years;
    establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
    (OJ 1992 L 389, p, 1).
 5
( ) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 17.                                                      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                               under Article 9(2) of Regulation TEC) No 3760/92 (1) and
                                                                               Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
                                                                               in conjunction with Regulations (EEC) Nos 3362/94 (3)
                                                                               and 3074/95 (4);