CELEX: C2000/211/09
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-156/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

22.7.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
    communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    necessary to comply with European Parliament and
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concern-               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    ing the coordination of procedures for the award of public           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
    service contracts, public supply contracts and public works          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
    contracts respectively (1), the Italian Republic has failed to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 July 1998
    fulfil its obligations under that directive; and                     without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                         necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           referred to in the Commission’s application.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 335, p. 15.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 13 October
1998 without the Italian Republic having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive           Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
referred to in the Commission’s application.                             Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1.
                                                                                                  (Case C-156/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 211/09)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 22 February 2000 by the Commission                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
                                                                         pean Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
                          (Case C-56/00)
                                                                         Hague, acting as Agent.
                         (2000/C 211/08)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February              — Annul the Commission decision of 23 February 2000
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           determining in a particular case that an application for
represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and                  remission of import duties in a specified amount is
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                     inadmissible and that the remission of import duties in a
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               separate amount is unjustified (file REM 23/99);
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, communi-
    cate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the            — Infringement of Article 589 of Commission Regulation
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 (EEC) No 2454/93 (1); in the alternative, infringement of
    to comply with Directive 97/63/EC of the European                         the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC
    Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 1997                         in so far as the contested decision declared inadmissible
    amending Directives 76/116/EEC, 80/876/EEC, 89/284/                       that part of the application for remission which seeks
    EEC and 89/530/EEC on the approximation of the laws of                    to recover compensatory interest: Article 589(3), fifth
    the Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Italian                subparagraph, of Regulation No 2454/93 provides that if
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  the Commission fails to raise an objection against acceding
    directive; and                                                            to the request within two months of the date of
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
     acknowledgment of receipt, the Member State shall waive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesar-
     application of Article 589(1) of Regulation No 2454/93.             beitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000
     Compensatory interest thus comes within the scope of the            in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata
     customs debt.                                                                           Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer
— Infringement of Article 221 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 2913/92 (2) (Community Customs Code) in so far as                                       (Case C-162/00)
     the contested decision declared part of the application to
     be inadmissible on the ground that the part in question                                    (2000/C 211/10)
     had become time-barred: the Commission misconstrues
     Article 221 of the Community Customs Code and fails to
     appreciate that the question whether a customs debt                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     has become time-barred is a matter coming within the                European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
     jurisdiction of national courts and not within the power of         (Federal Labour Court), of 22 March 2000, received at the
     the Commission.                                                     Court Registry on 2 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptow-
— Infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs                   icz-Meyer on the following questions:
     Code and of Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93; in the
     alternative, infringement of the principle of pro-                  1. Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement of
     portionality; in the further alternative, infringement of the           16 December 1991 establishing an association between
     obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC so              the European Communities and their Member States and
     far as Article 1(2) of the contested decision is concerned              the Republic of Poland preclude the application — to
     (rejection of the remainder of the application for remission            Polish nationals — of national law according to which
     of import duties): although the Commission is correct in                posts for foreign-language assistants may be filled by
     stating that the party concerned has extensive professional             means of employment contracts of limited duration where-
     experience in the agricultural products sector, the Com-                as, for other teaching staff performing special duties,
     mission errs in its view that it ought to have been obvious             recourse to such contracts must be individually justified by
     to that party that neither the authorisation for inward                 an objective reason?
     processing nor the Community legislation published and
     in force allows wheat to be used in place of maize for the
     manufacture of glucose exported by that party. In finding           2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     at the same time that the competent customs authorities                 affirmative:
     had not raised a single objection against the transactions
     of the party concerned, even though these had been carried              Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement also preclude
     out for many years, the Commission imposed more                         the application of national law where the employment
     stringent requirements on the party concerned than those                contract of limited duration was concluded before the
     which could have been imposed by the competent auth-                    Europe Agreement entered into force and the agreed
     orities. Furthermore, the Commission fails to take account              period comes to an end after its entry into force?
     of the fact that it has also been known to take the view
     that equivalence may be authorised between two products
     which do not satisfy the equivalence criteria.
     The Commission has expressly determined that there was
     no question of manipulation on the part of the party
     concerned and that the financial advantage is attributable
     to price fluctuations under which the procedure followed
     by the party concerned might just as easily have resulted
     in a financial loss. That procedure resulted in a total
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht,
     customs debt of NLG 17 491 244,45, while the intended
                                                                         Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
     surplus (profit) during the period in question came to
                                                                         court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel
     NLG 710 700. Under those circumstances and those
                                                                                  GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
     already pointed out, it would be disproportionate not to
     proceed with remission of the customs debt in so far as
     that debt is higher than the advantage obtained by the                                     (Case C-172/00)
     party concerned.
                                                                                                (2000/C 211/11)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2913/92, as last amended by Regulation (EEC)                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    No 1662/99 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).                                    European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
(2) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                                 (Regional Court), Cologne, of 14 April 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
                                                                         Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH, on the following questions: