CELEX: C2004/047/31
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-518/03: Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 47/19
Furthermore, there exists no provision of Spanish law which                Pleas in law and main arguments
demands that account should be taken of compliance by a
foreign private security firm, or by its staff, with the guarantees
and requirements imposed in another Member State. As a
result, those are measures which have the effect of discouraging           Under Article 23.3 of the contracts, the applicant before the
foreign undertakings that wish to carry on activities in Spain.            Court of First Instance, Società IAMA Consulting, is required
                                                                           to reimburse the Commission for any sums overpaid.
(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
    system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
                                                                           Part of the Community contribution is attributable to
    on completion of professional education and training of at least       the expenses incurred by IAMA Consulting before 1 Novem-
    three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).                           ber 1997 (and not re-invoiced to IAMA International) in
(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general        a total amount of LIT 913 874 209, of which
    system for the recognition of professional education and training      LIT 576 432 631 related to the REGIS Project and
    to supplement Directive 89/48/EC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25).               LIT 337 441 578 to the REFIAG Project.
                                                                           The remainder derives from the amendments to expenditure,
                                                                           made during the audit, amounting to a total of
                                                                           LIT 185 531 657, of which LIT 60 603 671 related to the
                                                                           REGIS Project and LIT 124 927 986 to the REFIAG Project.
Counterclaim submitted in the defence lodged on 17 July
2001 by the Commission in Case T-85/01 Società IAMA
Consulting v Commission of the European Communities,
pending before the Court of First Instance and referred to
the Court of Justice on 2 December 2003 by order of
        25 November 2003, as a matter of jurisdiction                      Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                        Sweden
                           (Case C-517/03)
                                                                                                   (Case C-518/03)
                            (2004/C 47/30)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 47/31)
On 2 December 2003 the Court of First Instance, by order of
25 November 2003, referred to the Court of Justice a                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
counterclaim submitted by the Commission of the European                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Communities, represented by Eugenio de March and Alberto                   9 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
Dal Ferro, acting as Agents, in its defence in Case T-85/01                Communities, represented by K. Banks and K. Simonsson,
Società IAMA Consulting v Commission of the European                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
                                                                                 the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
—     Uphold its counterclaim and order Società IAMA Con-                        provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)
      sulting to repay the sum of LIT 1 099 405 866                              of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
      (EUR 567 796) plus interest, in accordance with                            1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
      Article 94 of Regulation No 341/93;                                        tions, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                 directive; and
—     In any event order Società IAMA Consulting to pay the
      costs                                                                2.    order Sweden to pay the costs of the case.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                        of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                        (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated
The period within which the directive was to be implemented             10 December 2003, in the case of The Queen on the
expired on 30 July 2000.                                                application of 1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen’s
                                                                        Organisation against Department for Environment, Food
                                                                                               and Rural Affairs
(1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.
                                                                                                (Case C-535/03)
                                                                                                 (2004/C 47/33)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt München by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in
the case of SA Scania Finance France against Rockinger                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co.                      European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                        Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Adminis-
                                                                        trative Court) dated 10 December 2003, which was received
                         (Case C-522/03)                                at the Court Registry on 19 December 2003, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of
                                                                        1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation
                          (2004/C 47/32)                                against Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
                                                                        on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                  Are:
München of 24 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
6 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SA
                                                                        (1) paragraph 4(b), and the part of paragraph 6(a) which
Scania Finance France against Rockinger Spezialfabrik für
                                                                              refers to paragraph 4(b), of Annex XVII of Council
Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. on the following ques-
                                                                              Regulation 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 (1); and/or
tions:
1.    Is point 2 of Article 27 of the Brussels Convention of            (2) paragraph 4(b), and the part of paragraph 6(a) which
      27 September 1968, as amended by the Fourth Conven-                     refers to paragraph 4(b), of Annex XVII of Council
      tion on Accession of 29 November 1996, in conjunction                   Regulation 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 as
      with the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol to               amended by Regulation 671/2003 of 10 April 2003 (2);
      the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as                        and/or
      amended by the Fourth Convention on Accession of
      29 November 1996, to be interpreted as meaning that
      judicial documents may be served on a defendant, who at           (3) Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/185 of 14 March
      the time of service of the document instituting proceed-                2003 (3) insofar as the Commission refuses to extend,
      ings is domiciled in a Contracting State other than the                 under paragraph 6(b) of Annex XVII of Council Regu-
      State of the court, only in accordance with the conven-                 lation 2341/2002, the number of days available to vessels
      tions concluded between the Contracting States?                         carrying the gear in the class referred to in paragraph 4(b)
                                                                              of that Annex, by two days,
2.    If not, is Article 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
      national rule under which service of a judicial document
      on a defendant who, at the time of the service, is                unlawful in their application to open gear beam trawlers
      domiciled in another Member State is deemed constituted           because they are:
      by a domestic service whereby the bailiff of the court
      lodges the document instituting proceedings with the
      public prosecution service, which forwards the docu-              (a)   contrary to Articles 33 (ex 39) and 34 (ex 40) EC,
      ments for transfer by contractual or diplomatic means,
      and, by registered letter with notice of delivery, notifies
      the foreign party of the service which has been effected?         (b) contrary to Articles 28 (ex 30) and 29 (ex 34) EC,
                                                                        (c)   disproportionate,