CELEX: C2000/149/30
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-48/00: Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

C 149/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission                   the European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
   of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden                     T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et
                                                                       d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the European
                         (Case C-42/00)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 14 February 2000 by Société de
                                                                       Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles represented by
                        (2000/C 149/28)                                SCP Fourgoux & Associés, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                    Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
11 February 2000 by the Commission of the European                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Christina
Tufvesson, of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office        — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                             T-45/96;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Pleas in law and main arguments
    Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996 on
    access to the groundhandling market at Community                   Infringement of essential procedural requirements and funda-
    airports the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its            mental rights, infringement of the Treaty and error of appraisal
    obligations under that directive;                                  of the facts and law as regards admissibility of the actions.
2. order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments
The binding nature of the provisions in the third paragraph of
Article 249 and Article 10 of the EC Treaty requires the               Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Commission
Member States to take the necessary measures to implement              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
the directive in national law within the period laid down. The                                        Spain
period laid down in Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC expired
on 25 October 1997 without Sweden having promulgated the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive.                                                (Case C-48/00)
(1) OJ L 272 of 25.10.96, p. 36.                                                                 (2000/C 149/30)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February
                                                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Appeal brought on 14 February 2000 by Société de
Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 1999 by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and                      1. declare that by failing to adopt, implement and notify
T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques                      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
et d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the                        necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/41/EC (1)
                    European Communities                                   of 25 June 1997 amending Directives 76/895/EEC,
                                                                           86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the
                       (Case C-44/00 P)                                    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, includ-
                        (2000/C 149/29)                                    ing fruit and vegetables, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
                                                                           to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, and,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of            2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Therefore, is an undertaking whose registered office is in a
                                                                            Member State at whose request a protected designation of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                 origin has been registered in accordance with Article 17 of
C-42/00 (2); the period prescribed for adoption laid down in                Regulation No 2081/92 (24 July 1993), which has used a
Article 5 of the Directive expired on 31 December 1998.                     designation that is open to confusion with the one
                                                                            registered uninterruptedly over the five years prior to the
                                                                            entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92 entitled to use
(1) OJ 1997 L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 33.                                        the same designation to distinguish products which are
(2) See page 18 of this OJ.                                                 intended to be sold only outside the Member State of
                                                                            registration and only in the territory of a Member State
                                                                            which has not opposed the use of that designation in the
                                                                            said territory?
                                                                        — If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, may the
                                                                            undertaking whose registered office is in the Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                      of registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO)
Parma — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari                     legitimately describe his products by using the designation
— by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case                    which is open to confusion with the one registered until
          of criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi                        the expiry of the fifth year following the date of registration
                                                                            of the protected designation (12 June 1996), in other
                                                                            words until 12 June 2001?
                          (Case C-66/00)
                                                                        — As from the day following the date indicated in Question
                         (2000/C 149/31)                                    6 above (12 June 2001), must the use of any designation
                                                                            open to confusion with the one registered in all the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member States by any operator who is not expressly
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Parma                  authorised to use the registered designation within the
— Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (District                 meaning of Regulation No 2081/92 be regarded as pro-
Court, Parma, Office of the Judge responsible for preliminary               hibited?
investigations) of 21 February 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling            (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
in criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi, on the following            (2) OJ L 83 of 25.3.97, p. 3.
questions:                                                              (3) OJ L 148 of 21.6.96, p. 1.
— Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (1) (as
     amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 535/97) (2) be
     interpreted as meaning that no official measure of a
     legislative or administrative nature need be adopted by the
     Member State concerned in order to allow the use on its
     territory of designations which may be confused with               Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
     those registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)                      of the European Communities against Ireland
     No 2081/92?
                                                                                                  (Case C-67/00)
— Therefore, in order to allow use of the designations referred
     to above in the territory of the Member State concerned, is                                 (2000/C 149/32)
     it sufficient that there is no opposition by that Member
     State to such use?                                                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
— Does the lack of any opposition by the Member State in                the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     whose territory the designation which is open to confusion         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
     with one registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
     No 2081/92 is used render lawful the use of that desig-            Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
     nation by an undertaking whose registered office is in the         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     territory of the Member State in which the designation was
     registered, if that undertaking uses the designation which         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     is open to confusion only for products intended to be sold
     outside the country of registration and only within the            — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     territory of the Member State which is not opposed to use              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     of the said designation?                                               Commission Directive 98/28/EC (1) of 29 April 1998
                                                                            granting a derogation from certain provisions of Directive
— Does the period of five years referred to in Article 13(2) of             93/43/EEC (2)) on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards the
     Regulation No 2081/92 for use of a name in relation to a               transport by sea of bulk raw sugar or, in any event, by
     product whose designation was registered on 12 June                    failing to inform the Commission of those measures,
     1996 (see Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3), cited above)                 Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     expire on 12 June 2001?                                                Directive; and,