CELEX: C1999/086/20
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-24/99)

C 86/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
consequences provided for in Law No 88 of 16 March                      control of goods originating outside French territory, and
1988 (2)?                                                               thus constitute measures which are applicable with
                                                                        distinction' within the meaning of the Court's case-law.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 176.
                                                                        Having regard to their nature and purpose, the provisions
(2) Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No 69 of               at issue do not constitute an appropriate instrument for
    23.3.1988, Vol. V, p. 2469.                                         guaranteeing the safety of purchasers of spare parts for
                                                                        motor vehicles; moreover, the French authorities have
                                                                        produced no evidence showing that the goods withheld
                                                                        did in fact involve a risk to the safety and life of
                                                                        individuals. In any event, Article 36 of the Treaty cannot
                                                                        be relied on by a Member State with a view to protecting
                                                                        interests located on the territory of another Member State.
Action brought on 2 February 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-23/99)                                 The exclusive right conferred on the proprietor of rights in
                                                                        a design encompasses the manufacture and marketing of
                         (1999/C 86/19)                                 the goods in question on the national territory, and,
                                                                        having regard to the principle of the territoriality of
                                                                        industrial property rights, it cannot have the effect of
An action against the French Republic was brought before                protecting those rights on markets other than the national
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     market. The mere transit through French territory of
2 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                       goods which have not been manufactured there and which
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                         are not intended to be marketed there does not in itself
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a                constitute an infringement of the exclusive right,
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,              recognised under French law, held by the proprietor of the
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                        rights in a design.
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
Ð declare that, by implementing, pursuant to the Code                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic
     de la ProprieÂteÂ Intellectuelle (Intellectual Property                                     of Germany
     Code), procedures for the retention by the customs                                        (Case C-24/99)
     authorities of goods legally manufactured in a
     Member State of the European Community which are                                          (1999/C 86/20)
     intended, following their transit through French
     territory, to be placed on the market in another
     Member State where they may be legally marketed,
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;                                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Götz zur
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           Hausen, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     C 254, Kirchberg.
Infringement of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty: the
legality, under Community law, of the retention by the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
customs authorities in France of spare parts for motor
vehicles which have been manufactured in Spain and are
intended for the Italian market must be assessed solely by              1. Declare that, by providing, in Paragraph 3 of and
reference to the provisions of Articles 30 to 36 of the                     point 8 in the Annex to the Gesetz über die Umwelt-
Treaty, concerning the free movement of goods, since there                  verträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on the assessment of
has not yet been any harmonisation at Community level of                    effects on the environment) of 12 February 1990, in
the conditions and detailed rules governing the protection                  Paragraph 17 of the Fernstrassengesetz (Law on trunk
of designs for such parts. The French legislative provisions                roads) of 14 April 1994 and in Paragraph 8 of the
at issue in the present case concern the conferment on the                  Luftverkehrsgesetz (Law on air traffic) of 17 December,
French customs authorities of a power which they may                        that projects are in certain circumstances to be exempt
exercise in the context of the controls carried out by them.                from the obligation to carry out assessments of their
Those provisions specifically relate, therefore, to the                     effects on the environment, the Federal Republic of
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/11
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of
     Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive                          animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1), the
     85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of                  Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
     the effects of certain public and private projects on the            under the EC Treaty and that directive.
     environment.
                                                                     2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case-20/1999 (2).
Acording to the German legislative provisions referred to            (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
in 1., it is possible, in the circumstances described therein,       (2) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
to implement projects relating to road construction and
airports which are subject, as projects covered by Annex I
to the directive, to assessment of their effects on the
environment, without any procedure for the official
approval of the plans Ð and thus without any assessment
of their effects on the environment. Under the German
legislation, assessment of environmental effects may be              Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
dispensed with where the public interest is not affected             the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and where, moreover, the rights of third parties are not                                         Luxembourg
affected or where a form of contract has been concluded                                        (Case C-26/99)
with the legal owners of the land with a view to the
implementation of the projects in question. By contrast,                                       (1999/C 86/22)
the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC are not mentioned
in the national legislation; nor does that legislation take
into account the requirements laid down in the directive.            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.                                       Communities on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, represented by Pieter Jan
                                                                     Kuijper, Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, national civil
                                                                     servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                             Austria                                 that the Court should:
                         (Case C-25/99)
                         (1999/C 86/21)                              Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                          Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     adapting to technical progress Council Directive
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                      related to exposure to biological agents at work (1), the
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  obligations under the EC Treaty; and
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     Ð Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189(3)
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           and Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty requires Member States