CELEX: C2000/163/19
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-111/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

10.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 163/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                 a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the
     period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council                  Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
     Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Direc-                          visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
     tives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and                                97/59/EC (1) of 7 October 1997 adapting to technical
     90/642/EEC (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil                progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC (2) on the protec-
     its obligations under the Treaty; and                                       tion of workers from risks related to exposure to biological
                                                                                 agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
                                                                                 meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                               Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                 Article 2(1) of that directive;
                                                                           b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                 Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
on 31 December 1998.
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put
                                                                           forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission
                                                                           the time-limit for transposition expired on 31 March 1998
(1) Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Directives
                                                                           without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full
    76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating             for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.
    to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
    respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal
    origin, and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
    vegetables (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33).                                     ( 1) OJ L 282, 15.10.1997, p. 33.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                    ( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official
                                                                                Journal.
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
                                 Austria                                   of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                          Austria
                           (Case C-110/00)
                                                                                                     (Case C-111/00)
                           (2000/C 163/18)                                                           (2000/C 163/19)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens           represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens
Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an                   Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an
exchange with national civil servants, with an address for                 exchange with national civil servants, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.               Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                 notice has been given, may not be authorised, if it can also
                                                                             be held at a place away from the transit route with a
a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the                     comparable effect on public awareness, or by requiring it
      Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-               at least to be dispersed once this becomes possible?
      visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
      97/65/EC (1) of 26 November 1997 adapting, for the third
      time, to technical progress Council Directive
      90/679/EEC (2) on the protection of workers from risks              2. Where, on account of the failure by a Member State to
      related to exposure to biological agents at work (seventh              indicate in its national provisions on freedom of assembly
      individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of            and the right to exercise it that, in the weighing of freedom
      Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the Republic of Austria has                 of assembly against the public interest, the principles of
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that            Community law, primarily the fundamental freedoms and,
      directive;                                                             in this particular case, the provisions on the free movement
                                                                             of goods, are also to be observed, a political demonstration
b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                           of 28 hours’ duration is authorised and held which,
                                                                             in conjunction with a pre-existing national generally
                                                                             applicable ban on holiday driving, causes an essential intra-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Community goods transit route to be closed, inter alia, to
                                                                             the majority of heavy goods traffic for four days, with a
                                                                             short interruption of a few hours, does that failure
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put                  constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of Com-
forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission                    munity law in order to establish liability on the part of the
the time-limit for transposition expired on 30 June 1998                     Member State under the principles of Community law,
without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full                provided that the other requirements for such liability are
for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.        met?
( 1) OJ L 335, 6.12.1997, p. 17.
( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                           3. Where a national authority decides that there is nothing in
( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official         the provisions of Community law, in particular those
     Journal.                                                                concerning the free movement of goods and the general
                                                                             duty of cooperation and solidarity under Article 5 of the
                                                                             EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), to preclude, and thus no
                                                                             ground on which to ban, a political demonstration of
                                                                             28 hours’ duration which, in conjunction with a pre-
                                                                             existing national generally applicable ban on holiday
                                                                             driving, causes an essential intra-Community goods transit
                                                                             route to be closed, inter alia, to the majority of heavy
                                                                             goods traffic for four days, with a short interruption of a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Beschlusses des                    few hours, does that decision constitute a sufficiently
Oberlandesgerichts Innsbruck by order of 1 February                          serious infringement of Community law in order to
2000 in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v Republic of                         establish liability on the part of the Member State liable
                               Austria                                       under the principles of Community law, provided that the
                                                                             other requirements for such liability are met?
                           (Case C-112/00)
                           (2000/C 163/20)
                                                                          4. Is the objective of an officially authorised political demon-
                                                                             stration, namely that of working for a healthy environment
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       and of drawing attention to the danger to public health
European Communities by order of 1 February 2000 by the                      caused by the constant increase in the transit traffic of
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court), Innsbruck, which                  heavy-goods vehicles to be deemed to be of a higher order
was received at the Court Registry on 24 March 2000, for a                   than the provisions of Community law on the free
preliminary ruling in the case of Eugen Schmidberger v                       movement of goods under Article 28 EC?
Republic of Austria on the following questions:
1. Are the principles of the free movement of goods under
      Article 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 et              5. Is there already loss giving rise to a claim founded on State
      seq. EC), or other provisions of Community law, to be                  liability where the person incurring the loss can prove that
      interpreted as meaning that a Member State is obliged,                 he was in a position to earn income, in the present case
      either absolutely or at least as far as reasonably possible,           from the international transport of goods by means of the
      to keep major transit routes clear of all restrictions and             heavy-goods vehicles operated by him but rendered idle by
      impediments, inter alia, by requiring that a political                 the 28 hour demonstration, yet is unable to prove the loss
      demonstration to be held on a transit route, of which                  of a specific transport journey?