CELEX: C2003/275/55
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-407/03: Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

C 275/36               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          15.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’in-                 Do the provisions of Community law relating to restrictions
stance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris by judgment of                  on the marketing of dangerous substances and preparations,
that Court of 21 August 2003 in the case of Waterman SA                  and in particular the provisions of Directive 76/769 (1) and
against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects                Directive 94/60 (2) of 20 December 1994, prohibit the placing
                                                                         on the market for sale to the public of drying agent products
                                                                         containing lead compounds classified as toxic for reproductive
                         (Case C-400/03)                                 purposes, or do those provisions permit the relevant dero-
                                                                         gation laid down for ‘artists’ paints’ to be applied to those
                                                                         products?
                         (2003/C 275/53)
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-
                                                                             mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’instance                  use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 262
du VIIème arrondissement de Paris of 21 August 2003,                         of 27.9.1976, p. 201).
received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2003, for a               (2) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC of
preliminary ruling in the case of Waterman SA against                        20 December 1994 amending for the 14th time Directive 76/
Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the                     769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restric-
following question:
                                                                             tions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances
                                                                             and preparations (OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 1).
Is the Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature
relating to subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19, which
clarifies the term ‘in the form of plastic sheeting’ as follows: ‘if
a container has an outer material that is a combination of
materials where the outer layer being visible to the naked eye
is plastic sheeting (e.g., woven fabric of textile fibres in
combination with plastic sheeting) it is irrelevant for classifi-
cation purposes whether the sheeting was manufactured
separately before creating the combined material or whether              Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-
the plastic layer is the result of applying a coating or covering        mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
of plastics to the material ... provided that the resultant outer                                    lic of Finland
layer being visible to the naked eye has the same visual
appearance as an applied layer of manufactured plastic sheet-
ing’, contrary to the tariff?
                                                                                                   (Case C-407/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 275/55)
                                                                         An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Grande Instance du Mans by judgment of that Court of
                                                                         29 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
8 September 2003 in the case of The Procureur de la
                                                                         Communities, represented by M. van Beek and M. Huttunen,
   Republique against Oliver Dupuy and Hervé Rouvre
                                                                         acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-404/03)
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
                         (2003/C 275/54)
                                                                         1.     Declare that, by failing to require in its legislation with
                                                                                sufficient legal certainty that an appropriate assessment
                                                                                is to be made with respect to all projects, including those
                                                                                which are the subject of an ‘environmental impact
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                assessment’, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                                obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/
Grande Instance du Mans (Regional Court, Le Mans) of
                                                                                43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
8 September 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 Sep-
                                                                                habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1);
tember 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The
Procureur de la Republique against Oliver Dupuy and Hervé
Rouvre on the following question:                                        2.     Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.11.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 275/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the nature
directive by failing to require in its legislation with sufficient        1.    declare that the Kingdom of Belgium:
legal certainty that an appropriate assessment is to be made in
respect of all projects, including those which are the subject of
an environmental impact assessment. That fact alone suffices                    —     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18
to found the present action.                                                          EC and Directive 90/364/EEC on the right of
                                                                                      residence, by making the right of residence of
                                                                                      citizens of the Union subject to the condition that
Finland took the view in its response to the letter of formal                         they have sufficient personal resources;
notice that if the Environmental Impact Assessment Law
applies to a project, the explanations made in connection with
the environmental impact assessment procedure may be the                        —     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 90/
appropriate assessment within the meaning of Paragraph 65 of                          364/EEC on the right of residence (1), under Article 4
the Nature Protection Law. According to Finland, overlapping                          of Directive 68/360/EEC on the abolition of restric-
procedures are thus prevented. Finland repeated its view in its                       tions on movement and residence within the Com-
reply to the reasoned opinion.                                                        munity for workers of Member States and their
                                                                                      families (2), under Article 4 of Directive 73/148/EEC
                                                                                      on the abolition of restrictions on movement and
In so far as Finland refers to difficulties in practice in                            residence within the Community for nationals of
bringing its legislation into line with its Treaty obligations, the                   Member States with regard to establishment and the
Commission recalls the settled case-law of the Court of Justice                       provision of services (3), under Article 2 of Directive
which says that internal difficulties within the State connected                      93/96/EEC on the right of residence for students, (4)
with the conditions in which laws and regulations are drafted                         and under Article 2 of Directive 90/365/EEC on the
cannot release a Member State from its obligations under                              right of residence for employees and self-employed
Community law. Similarly, in accordance with the settled case-                        persons who have ceased their occupational
law of the Court of Justice, when assessing whether a Member                          activity (5), by providing for the possibility to give
State has failed to fulfil its obligations of membership, regard                      automatic notification of an order to leave the
must be had to the situation of the Member State as it is at the                      country to citizens of the Union who have not
expiry of the time-limit set in the reasoned opinion.                                 produced the documents necessary to obtain a
                                                                                      residence permit within a prescribed period;
As yet, it has not yet come to the knowledge of the Commission
that the necessary measures for aligning national legislation             2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
with Article 6(3) of the nature directive have been carried out,
or at least they have not been notified to the Commission.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Belgian legislation and administrative practice infringe
                                                                          Community law in that they lay down:
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Com-                           —     the condition of possession of sufficient personal
mission of the European Communities against the                                 resources.
                       Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                Article 1 of Directive 90/364/EEC requires that the citizen
                         (Case C-408/03)                                        of the Union proves that he has, for himself and the
                                                                                members of his family, sufficient resources, but does not
                                                                                require that the resources are his. The Directive introduces
                         (2003/C 275/56)                                        in respect of the host Member State a flexible system of
                                                                                guarantees which evolves over time, intended to allow
                                                                                the citizen of the Union to move easily within the
                                                                                territory of the Member States without having to prove
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                            that he has means of subsistence for the entire duration
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      of his stay. However, the system of the Belgian authorities
30 September 2003 by the Commission of the European                             seeks to introduce additional guarantees in order to avoid
Communities, represented by M. Condou Durande and D. Mar-                       ab initio the citizen of the Union becoming a burden on
tin, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-                    the social assistance system, which is inherently contrary
bourg.                                                                          to the spirit of Directive 90/364/EEC.