CELEX: C2001/369/16
Language: en
Date: 2001-12-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-415/01: Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

22.12.2001                  EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 369/9
     the view — which is challenged by the Netherlands —                 Upon triangular outward processing, is an operator prohibited,
     that not only imports of mixtures of sugar and cocoa                upon a proper interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of the
     with EC/OCT originating status, but also imports of                 Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) (1)
     mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating                from deducting, on release of compensating products for free
     status, have an adverse effect on the sugar sector, it has          circulation, the amount of the import duties which would be
     failed in any way whatever to substantiate this;                    applicable to the temporary export goods in accordance with
                                                                         their correct tariff heading where their tariff heading declared
—    Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: the             on their exportation was different because it was incorrect?
     Commission has failed to ensure that the safeguard
     measures adopted pursuant to the contested regulation
     will cause as little disruption as possible to the functioning
     of the association. The Commission has also failed to               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                             establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
     determine whether those safeguard measures will have                    19.10.1992, p. 1).
     the intended effect. Finally, the safeguard measures which
     have been adopted go further than is necessary: a
     safeguard measure providing simply for a minimum
     import price for ACP/OCT mixtures would have been
     adequate to achieve the desired objective and would have
     been less onerous for the OCT and the undertakings
     concerned;
—    Misuse of powers: Article 109 of the OCT Decision does
     not confer on the Commission any discretionary power
     to correct or supplement the opportunities for ACP/OCT              Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission
     originating status intended by the Council in cases where           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     the use of such an opportunity has consequences which                                               Belgium
     were envisaged or even intended when the OCT Decision
     was adopted;
                                                                                                    (Case C-415/01)
—    Infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-
     imate expectations;
                                                                                                    (2001/C 369/16)
—    Infringement of Article 253 EC: the safeguard measure in
     issue is in no way whatever supported by facts or figures.
(1) OJ C ... of ..., p. ...
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by G.V. Jordana and J. Adda, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
stance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October
2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des
                                Douanes                                  —     Declare that, inasmuch as the Flemish Region and the
                                                                               Walloon Region have failed to transpose Article 4(1) and
                                                                               (2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1),
                             (Case C-411/01)                                   to define special protection areas within their territories
                                                                               which are capable of being relied upon as against third
                                                                               parties and to take the measures necessary to ensure that
                             (2001/C 369/15)                                   the classification of a site as a special protection area
                                                                               automatically and simultaneously entails the application
                                                                               of a system of protection and conservation which is in
                                                                               line with Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal d’Instan-                   Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
ce (District Court), Metz, of 8 October 2001, which was                        conservation of wild birds, together with Article 4(4)
received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001, for a                       thereof, as partially amended, in accordance with Article 7
preliminary ruling in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur                          of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), by Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of
Principal des Douanes on the following questions:                              that same directive,
 ---pagebreak--- C 369/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.12.2001
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by G. zur Hausen, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                           H. van der Woude and V. Landes, avocats, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The mere fact of having designated a number of special
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      protection areas does not in itself constitute a complete
      and proper transposition of Article 4(1) and (2) of the
      directive since such designation is only intended to
      implement the general obligations enshrined in the                   —     Declare that, by failing to transpose completely Articles
      directive. On the other hand, no legally binding provision                 14(a) and (b), 15(1) and (2), 16(1) and 19(2), (3) and (4)
      applicable in the territory of one or other region provides                of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
      for the classification as special protection areas of the                  on the contained use of genetically modified micro-
      most appropriate areas in terms of number and surface                      organisms (1), and by failing to transpose the provisions
      area for the conservation of the bird species listed in                    of the directive for certain contained use by the Ministry
      Annex I and of the regularly occurring migratory species                   of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      not listed in Annex I, as regards their breeding, moulting                 obligations under that directive and Article 249 of the EC
      and wintering areas and staging posts along their                          Treaty; and
      migration routes.
—     The delimitation of the special protection areas by those            —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      regions cannot be relied upon as against third parties in
      the absence of their publication and in the absence of
      provisions of national law providing expressly that the
      publication of the order without accompanying maps is
      to have no effect on their binding nature vis-à-vis third
      parties.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     So far as the Flemish Region is concerned, the special
      protection areas do not have the protection and conser-
      vation status provided for by Community law in the field,
      since the only measures which are applicable are either
                                                                           The Commission takes the view that the implementing
      sparse and disjointed or, on the contrary, are of an
                                                                           measures communicated by the French authorities amount to
      extremely general nature having exactly the same value
                                                                           only incomplete transposition of certain provisions of the
      within as outwith the special protection areas.
                                                                           directive, namely:
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).                            —     Article 14(a), in so far as it concerns the use of genetically
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation               modified micro-organisms belonging to Groups I and II
    of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,              for teaching, research and development, and in so far as
    p. 7).                                                                       it concerns installations other than those subject to
                                                                                 authorisation involving uses for industrial or non-com-
                                                                                 mercial purposes;
                                                                           —     Article 14(b), in so far as it concerns installations subject
                                                                                 to declaration and in so far as it concerns making
                                                                                 available to other Member States concerned information
Action brought on 5 November 2001 by the Commission                              on safety measures and on the correct behaviour to adopt
  of the European Communities against French Republic                            in the case of an accident;
                          (Case C-429/01)
                                                                           —     Article 15(1), in that the measures adopted by the French
                                                                                 authorities do not specify the list of information to be
                          (2001/C 369/17)                                        provided by the user;
                                                                           —     Article 15(2), in so far as it concerns the drawing up of a
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                     framework for the measures designed to alert any Member
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 November                       State liable to be affected by an accident;