CELEX: C2004/021/50
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-504/03: Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

24.1.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 21/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Spanish authorities have failed to fulfil the obligations
                                                                           deriving from Directive 64/221/EEC since, having established
                                                                           that the persons concerned are included in the SIS reporting
1.    Declare that (i) by rejecting a visa application for the             list and that they are covered by Community law, they
      entry into Spanish territory of two persons, both nationals          concluded automatically, and without carrying out an individ-
      of third countries (or of non-member countries), who are             ual assessment, that entry into Spanish territory and the visa
      members of a family of citizens of the European Union,               application had to be refused, and failed to carry out the
      on the sole ground that they are included in the national            necessary checks to ascertain whether that inclusion in the
      reporting list in the Schengen Information System of                 reporting list was well-founded as regards the requirements of
      persons not to be permitted entry (at the request of a               Community law.
      Member State) and, (ii) for failing to give adequate reasons
      for the refusal of the visa applications and entry, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under          (1) OJ, English Special Edition Series I, Chapter 1963-1964, p. 117.
      Articles 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Directive 64/221/EEC of
      25 February 1964 (1) on the co ordination of special
      measures concerning the movement and residence of
      foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public
      policy, public security or public health;
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                                         Republic
                                                                                                     (Case C-504/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (2004/C 21/50)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Directive 64/221/EEC constitutes the Community                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Novem-
implementing legislation on the movement and residence (for                ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
persons covered by Community law or citizens of a non-                     represented by J.-P. Keppenne and V. Di Bucci, acting as
member country who are members of a family of Community                    Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
citizens); it precludes the inclusion of those persons in the
national reporting list of citizens not to be permitted entry
pursuant to Article 96 of the Convention implementing the                  The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Schengen Agreement, since the result of inclusion is as a rule             the Court should:
that all the Member States which apply the Schengen acquis
must refuse the person concerned entry to their territory.                 1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                                 period prescribed for that purpose the measures necessary
                                                                                 to ensure reimbursement by Bull of the cash advance,
                                                                                 including interest, in accordance with Commission
                                                                                 Decision 2003/599/EC concerning the cash advance
Access by a citizen of the Union or of a third country who is a                  granted by France to Bull (notified under document
family member of a Community citizen to the territory of a                       number C(2002) 4366) (1), the French Republic has failed
Member State may be refused entry on grounds of public                           to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of
policy only when the person concerned represents a present,                      Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of the decision;
genuine and sufficiently serious threat, affecting a fundamental
interest of society. Facts constituting a threat to public policy
                                                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
within the usual Community law meaning (Directive 64/221/
EEC) cannot be treated in the same way as facts constituting
such a threat within the meaning of Article 96(2) of the
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement. In the
present case, the inclusion in the Schengen Information System             Pleas in law and main arguments
(SIS) at the request of Germany cannot constitute on its own a
sufficient indication of a genuine and serious threat to public
policy, given that on one hand the grounds for that inclusion              The French Republic has not taken any measures to comply
are not known, and on the other hand the parties concerned                 with the decision of 13 November 2002 and has not informed
legally reside in the territory of a Member State, which                   the Commission in due time of any proposals for alternative
constitutes evidence that there is no threat of that kind.                 measures.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
The French Republic had confirmed its willingness to comply              Pleas in law and main arguments
with the decision of 13 November 2002. Nevertheless it failed
to submit evidence of the reimbursement by Bull, no later than
17 June 2003, of the cash advance of EUR 450 million,                    According to Article 7(6) and Article 19 of Directive 80/778/
including interest. The French Republic did not at any time              EEC, read in conjunction with Annex I to that directive, from
plead that it found it absolutely impossible to comply with the          15 July 1985 all water intended for human consumption in
decision. It took no action in relation to Bull with a view to           France must have a maximum nitrate concentration of less
obtaining reimbursement of the aid. Moreover, compliance                 than or equal to 50 mg/l.
with the decision did not present any particular difficulty,
since reimbursement had been agreed upon from the outset
between the Commission and the French Republic on the one
hand, and between the French Republic and Bull on the other              However, it appears from official publications that in 1988,
hand.                                                                    13 % of the total population of the region of Brittany were
                                                                         supplied with water which had, temporarily or permanently, a
                                                                         nitrate concentration of over 50 mg/l.
In addition the French Republic has allowed the period
prescribed to expire without bringing an action for annulment            On expiry of the period laid down by the Commission in its
of the decision, which must therefore be considered final                reasoned opinion, the French authorities admitted that that
against it.                                                              percentage, although it had decreased, was still 2,6 % in 2002.
(1) OJ 2003 L 209, p. 1.                                                 (1) OJ 1980 L 229, p. 11.
Action brought on 28 November 2003 by the Com-                           Action brought on 4 December 2003 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the French                   of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                             Republic                                                                lic of Germany
                         (Case C-505/03)                                                            (Case C-510/03)
                                                                                                     (2004/C 21/52)
                          (2004/C 21/51)
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Novem-                ties on 4 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Communities, represented by J.C. Schieferer, with an address
represented by G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti, acting as             for service in Luxembourg.
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    declare that, by adopting and retaining provisions
                                                                               impeding the placing on the market and putting into
1.   declare that, by failing to comply with the requirements                  service of appliances burning gaseous fuel which satisfy
     of the directive in relation to the nitrate content of                    the requirements of Council Directive 90/396/EEC of
     drinking water in Brittany, the French Republic has failed                29 June 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(6) and Annex I of               Member States relating to appliances burning gaseous
     Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980, as                          fuels (1), in particular gas-fuelled water heaters, the Federal
     amended, relating to the quality of water intended for                    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     human consumption (1);                                                    under Article 4 of Directive 90/396/EEC;
2.   order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.