CELEX: C1999/246/28
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-231/99: Action brought on 16 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

28.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                 4. Is Commission Regulation No 1576/95 of 30 June 1995
Genova, Sezione I, by order of that court of 25 May 1999                   likewise invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a
in the case of Siples srl in liquidation against (1) Ministero             statement of reasons?
delle Finanze and (2) Servizio Riscossione Tributi Conces-
sione Provinciale Genova San Paolo Riscossioni Genova                  5. Do the export operations of 30 June 1995 fall within the
                                SpA                                        scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1415/95 of 22
                                                                           June 1995 as a result of the invalidity of the above-
                         (Case C-226/99)                                   mentioned regulations, or by the repeal referred to in
                                                                           Question 1?
                         (1999/C 246/26)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 150 of 1.7.1995, p. 64.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (2) OJ L 147 of 30.6.1995, p. 65.
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile di
Genova Sezione I (Genoa District Court, First Chamber) of 25
May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 11
June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siples srl in
liquidation against (1) Ministero delle Finanze and (2) Servizio
Riscossione Tributi Concessione Provinciale Genova San Paolo
Riscossioni Genova SpA on the following question:
Is the power to suspend the contested decision provided for in         Action brought on 16 June 1999 by the Commission
Article 244 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) conferred               of the European Communities against the Republic of
exclusively on the customs authority or also on the judicial                                         Austria
authority before which an appeal has been brought?
                                                                                                (Case C-231/99)
(1) Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12.10.1992, OJ 1992 L 302,
    p. 1.
                                                                                                (1999/C 246/28)
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal Service, acting as
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
Cagliari, Sezione Civile, by order of that court of 21 May             of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, in the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero               Centre, Kirchberg.
                           delle Finanze
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-228/99)
                                                                       1. Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (1999/C 246/27)                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     — Council Directive 96/32/EC (1) of 21 May 1996
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari,                     amending Annex II to Directive 76/895/EEC relating
Sezione Civile, of 21 May 1999, which was received at the                       to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues
Court Registry on 14 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                     in and on fruit and vegetables and Annex II to Directive
the case of Silos e Mangimi Martini v Ministero delle Finanze                   90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of maximum levels
on the following questions:                                                     for pesticide residues in and on certain products
                                                                                of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, and
1. Does Commission Regulation No 1576/95 (1) of 30 June                         providing for the establishment of a list of maximum
     1995 repeal Commission Regulation No 1521/95 (2) of 29                     levels, and
     June 1995 and, if so, must the latter be held to have had
     no legal effects on 30 June 1995?
                                                                           — Council Directive 96/33/EC (2) of 21 May 1996
                                                                                amending the Annexes to Directives 86/362/EEC and
2. Must Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June
                                                                                86/363/EEC on the fixing of maximum levels for
     1995 be interpreted as meaning that it may be applied to
                                                                                pesticide residues in and on cereals and foodstuffs of
     export operations already underway and already completed
                                                                                animal origin respectively,
     on the same day on which the regulation itself was
     published and thus made available to the operators
     concerned?                                                            by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
                                                                           period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
3. Is Commission Regulation No 1521/95 of 29 June 1995                     necessary to comply with those directives;
     invalid and thus of no legal effect for lack of a statement
     of reasons?                                                       2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           28.8.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                         State examination, without giving further details, gives the
                                                                               impression that all the areas of specialised medicine
                                                                               concerned must be the subject of comprehensive fresh
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                     training, whereas Article 8(3) provides at most for
Case C-227/99 (3); the period for transposition of the directives              additional training in certain areas. In addition, the Spanish
expired on 30 April 1997.                                                      authorities have not demonstrated the utility of such an
                                                                               examination if the training is to be merely supplementary
                                                                               and limited.
(1) OJ L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 144 of 18.6.1996, p. 35.                                         — Failure to give effect to Article 18 of Directive 93/16/EEC:
(3) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                                 Spain has not shown that the application of its existing
                                                                               domestic law can have an effect equivalent to the
                                                                               implementation of that article.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 165 of 7.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                          (2) Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the
                                                                              mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
                                                                              formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate
Action brought on 17 June 1999 by the Commission of                           the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                         provide services (OJ L 167 of 30.6.75, p. 1).
                          (Case C-232/99)
                         (1999/C 246/29)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by Københavns Byret
                                                                          by order of 17 June 1999 in the case of Anklagemyn-
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                               digheden v Tonny Haugsted Hansen
Court of Justice on 17 June 1999 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Isabel Martı́nez del
Peral and Bernard Monguin, of its Legal Service, acting as                                           (Case C-233/99)
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                                     (1999/C 246/30)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of 17 June 1999 by
1. Declare that, by failing to give due effect within the                 Københavns Byret (Copenhagen District Court), which was
    prescribed period to Article 8 of Council Directive                   received at the Court Registry on 21 June 1999, for a
    93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) to facilitate the free move-            preliminary ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden (Public
    ment of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                   Prosecution Department) v Tonny Haugsted Hansen on the
    diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifi-          following questions:
    cations and by failing to give effect to Article 18 of that
    directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          1. Must European Parliament and Council Directive
    obligations under the EC Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                               94/62/EC(1) of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
                                                                               packaging waste, in particular Article 18, in conjunction
2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, be interpreted as
                                                                               precluding a national system under which criminal charges
                                                                               may be brought against a person who, contrary to certain
                                                                               national rules on the packaging of beer and soft drinks,
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                               has marketed imported canned cola in the metal packaging
                                                                               at issue in this case?
— Failure to give due effect to Article 8 of Directive
    93/16/EEC: a Member State may not make access to the
    training leading to the award of a specialist diploma in              2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Do the
    cases not covered by automatic recognition under the                       provisions of the directive, in particular Article 18, in
    directive systematically conditional upon the passing of a                 conjunction with Articles 5, 7 and 9 thereof, satisfy the
    State examination, like the public examination laid down                   conditions for being directly applicable, so that a person
    for access to the training to become a ‘Resident Medical                   who has been charged can rely directly on the provisions
    Intern’. Articles 39 (ex Article 48) and 43 (ex Article 52)                of the directive before national courts?
    of the EC Treaty, for the implementation of which
    Directives 75/362/EEC (2) and 93/16/EEC were adopted,                 3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 28
    require the Member States to take account, in the broadest                 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 30), in conjunction with
    and most practical way, of training already undertaken in                  considerations of environmental protection (see judgment
    another Member State. However, to subject migrants to a                    of 20 September 1988 in Case 302/86 Commission v