CELEX: C1998/258/40
Language: en
Date: 1998-08-15 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-216/98)

15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/25
Ð by laying down the amounts of the fees to be collected           meat are carried out does not comply with Directive 93/
    for health controls on the slaughter of animals and            118/EC with regard to points 1, 2 and 5 of Chapter 1 of
    those connected with cutting operations at 50 % of the         the annex to that directive.
    standard Community rates, without giving a reason
    for the reduction in accordance with the requirements
                                                                   (1) OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 15.
    of Chapter 1 of the annex to the Directive,
Ð by exempting poultry meat from the fees for the
    cutting of fresh meat,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations         Action brought on 11 June 1998 by the Commission of
under the Treaty and Council Directive 93/118/EC of                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the                                      (Case C-216/98)
financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat
and poultry meat, in particular points 1, 2 and 5 of                                        (98/C 258/40)
Chapter 1 of the annex to that Directive.
                                                                   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                before the Court of Justice on 11 June 1998 by the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                   by Maria Kondou-Durande and Enrico Traversa, of its
Having made a comparative examination of Presidential              Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Decree No 34 pursuant to which Decision 88/408/EEC                 at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
and the requirements of the annex to Directive 93/118/EC           Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
were transposed, the Commission considers that the
provisions of that Decree do not conform to Community
law for the following reasons:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
As regards the fees which should be collected for slaughter
inspections, the Greek legislation in question fails to refer      Ð declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force
to the category of solipeds/equidae. That fact constitutes             legislative provisions which require minimum retail
an infringement of point 1(b) of Chapter 1 of the annex to             selling prices for manufactured tobacco to be fixed by
Directive 93/118/EC.                                                   ministerial decisions has not complied with its
                                                                       obligations under Article 9 of Directive 95/59/EC (1) of
                                                                       27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes
                                                                       which affect the consumption of manufactured
The amounts of the fees to be collected for health controls            tobacco;
on the slaughter of animals correspond to 50 % of the
standard Community amounts, although the requirements
laid down in point 5 of the annex are not satisfied. That
fact constitutes an infringement of point 1 of Chapter 1 of        Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
the annex, in conjunction with point 5.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
As regards the fee to be collected in respect of the cutting
of fresh meat, Article 34 of the Presidential Decree
exempts poultry from that fee, although provision is made          Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/EC, which
for such a fee in the Community rules. That fact gives rise        corresponds to Article 5(1) of Directive 72/464/EEC, lays
to a case of infringement in relation to point 2 of                down the principle of the producer's or importer's
Chapter 1 of the annex to Directive 93/118/EC.                     freedom to determine retail selling prices for manufactured
                                                                   tobacco and requires the Member States as far as possible
                                                                   not to influence the formation of prices.
The fees applied for controls connected with cutting
operations are less than the Community fees, although the
requirements laid down by point 2 of Chapter 1 of the              According to Article 45 of Greek Law No 2127 of 5 April
annex to Directive 93/118/EC, in conjunction with point 5,         1993 on the harmonisation with Community law of the
are not satisfied.                                                 tax regime on petrol products, alcohol and alcoholic
                                                                   drinks and manufactured tobacco, retail selling prices for
                                                                   manufactured tobacco consumed within the country are to
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission considers            be determined freely by tobacco manufacturers. The
that the Greek legislation on fees to be collected when            Minister for Finance is to fix by decision the minimum
health controls and inspections of fresh meat and poultry          retail selling prices for those products, which are to be at
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
least equal to the prices on 1 December 1993 increased by            27 November 1987 in conjunction with Article 29(1) of
20 %.                                                                Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 (2) of 22 July
                                                                     1985 to be interpreted as meaning that the additional
                                                                     amount of 20 % of the export refund concerned is to be
                                                                     levied even where the goods put into storage pending
According to the Commission, the conflicting nature of
                                                                     export with a view to advance payment of the refund
the provisions of Article 45 of Law No 2127/1993 gives
                                                                     pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 565/
rise to doubt as regards the rights and duties of those
                                                                     80 (3) of 4 March 1980 in conjunction with Articles 25
concerned.
                                                                     and 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 are not exported
                                                                     Ð as originally planned Ð but are put back into free
                                                                     circulation in the Community following storage and the
In fact producers and importers are not free to determine            application for payment (Article 29(2) of Regulation
the selling price of their products, since there is a limit,         (EEC) No 3665/87) is withdrawn?
that is to say a minimum price which must be complied
with. That limit is fixed by the Minister for Finance and
corresponds to the selling price of those products as                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
determined for the previous year, increased by 20 %. The             (2) OJ L 205 of 3.8.1985, p. 5.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 62 of 7.3.1980, p. 5.
fact that the fixing of that limit takes place on the basis of
the selling prices which the producers or importers have
determined for previous years is not sufficient to show
that there is no restriction on freedom to determine prices.
Producers or importers do not have freedom to form their
prices but are bound to align them with the prices which
were decided upon in a given year. They cannot,
consequently, sell their products at a price lower than the
minimum price, as fixed by the Minister for Finance.                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre by judgment of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1998 in the case of Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and
                                                                                        243 others v SA Renault
Consequently, in so far as the Hellenic Republic prescribes
by ministerial decision a minimum retail selling price for                                  (Case C-218/98)
manufactured tobacco, it prevents manufacturers and
importers from determining that price freely, as they are                                     (98/C 258/42)
entitled to do under Article 9 of Council Directive 95/59/
EC, which replaced Article 5 of Directive 72/464/EEC.
(1) OJ L 291 of 6.12.1995, p. 40.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
                                                                     Prud'hommes du Havre (Industrial Tribunal, Le Havre) of
                                                                     24 April 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                     on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                     Oumar Dabo Abdoulaye and 243 others v SA Renault on
                                                                     the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 April 1998
in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ                      Does the principle of equal pay for men and women laid
                        Nordfleisch AG                               down by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and
                                                                     subsequent legislation authorise payment to a pregnant
                       (Case C-217/98)                               woman only, and not to the father of the child, of the sum
                                                                     of FF 7 500 when she takes maternity leave, given that:
                        (98/C 258/41)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               such payment is provided for by the last part of Article 18
European      Communities        by   an    order     of   the       of the collective agreement of 5 July 1991 on social
Bundesfinanzgericht (Federal Financial Court) of 7 April             benefits for Renault employees;
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas v LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the following
question:                                                            Article 19(2) of the agreement provides that employees'
                                                                     salaries continue to be paid during maternity leave?
Is the second subparagraph of Article 33(1)                 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1)                  of