CELEX: C1997/252/30
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-220/97)

16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/ 15
     customs authority in the context of an appeal against              2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     a decision by which that authority rejected the                           costs .
     application for suspension of operation brought by the
     person concerned .                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
3 . In the light of the first sentence of the third paragraph
     of Article 244 of the CCC, must it be considered that              The pleas in law and main arguments are apparent from
     suspension of operation is subject only to the existence           the heads of claim . As regards the complaint made
     or lodging of a security or must the conditions laid               in the third indent in paragraph 1 above, the
     down in the preceding paragraph also be fulfilled ?                Commission maintains that to equate, in conceptual
                                                                        terms, 'preliminary investigation proceedings' with
                                                                        ' administrative proceedings' would be tantamount to
(') Common Customs Code ( OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 ).
                                                                        excluding a wholly material range of environmental
                                                                        information, such as, for example, experts' reports on the
                                                                        state of water or soil or the position adopted by a public
                                                                        authority in the context of proceedings for the grant of
                                                                        planning approval .
Action brought on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                    ( ] ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 56 .
                              Germany
                          ( Case C-217/97 )
                             97/C 252/29
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Action brought on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Communities on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the                                                     of Germany
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,                                               ( Case C-220/97)
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                               ( 97/C 252/30
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of the
1 . declare that,
                                                                        European Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     — by excluding courts, criminal prosecution                        Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
          authorities and disciplinary authorities from the             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
          scope of the German legislation, contrary to                  of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
          Article 2 ( b ) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
          7 June 1990 (') on the freedom of access to                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
          information on the environment, even where they
          are not acting in the context of their judicial               1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
          activities,                                                          adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                               measures necessary in order to comply with Council
     — by failing, contrary to the second subparagraph of                      Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 (') on the
          Article 3 ( 2 ) of the Directive, to provide for
                                                                               supervision and control of shipments of radioactive
          information to be supplied in part where it is                       waste between Member States and into and out of the
          possible to separate out information concerning                      Community, the Federal Republic of Germany has
          the reserved matters listed in Article 3 (2 ),
                                                                               failed to fulfil its obligations under the Euratom
     — by failing, contrary to the third indent of                             Treaty;
          Article 3 ( 2 ), to provide for access to be given,
          during the course of administrative proceedings, to           2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
          information received by the authorities by reason                    costs .
          of those proceedings,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — by providing, contrary to Article 5 , for charges to
          be made not merely for the supply of the
          information and by not limiting those charges to a            The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
          reasonable sum,                                               paragraph of Article 161 and the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 192 of the Euratom Treaty is such as to oblige
     — the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                    Member States to whom directives             are addressed to
          fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned               achieve the objectives laid down therein within the time­
          directive, in particular Article 2 ( b ), the third           limit prescribed, that is to say, to transpose the provisions
          indent of Article 3 ( 2 ), the second subparagraph of         of the directive in question into national law in such a
          Article 3 (2 ) and Article 5 thereof;                         way as to give full practical effect to its provisions before
 ---pagebreak---   No C 252/16           I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
  the time-limit for transposition expires . The time-limit in                 of limited liability, which the Court of Justice has
  question expired on 1 January 1994 but the Federal                           developed in relation to the Community's liability for
- Republic of Germany has not adopted the necessary                            legal acts, to the Commission decisions in question,
  measures .                                                                   which, in the applicants' and appellants' view, do not
                                                                               constitute legislative acts. In applying the principles of
  (•) OJ No L 35 , 12 . 2 . 1992, p . 24 .                                     liability for administrative action the Court of First
                                                                               Instance should have held the defendant 's measures to
                                                                               be unlawful so that the applicants' and appellants'
                                                                               claim in damages was well founded . A further
                                                                               infringement of Community law incurred in that, in
                                                                               examining whether the fundamental right to property
                                                                               and the fundamental right to carry on a business or
  Appeal brought on 13 June 1997 by Aloys Schroder, Jan                        trade had been infringed, the Court took no account
  Thamann and Karl-Julius Thamann, acting in the capacity
                                                                               of the individual's interest in fundamental rights which
  of partners in Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, against the
                                                                               is guaranteed in the Community legal order. In
  judgment delivered on 15 April 1997 by the Fifth                             adopting the contested decisions the Commission did
  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
  Communities in Case T-3 90/94 between Aloys Schroder
                                                                               not in fact adopt generally applicable rules in relation
                                                                               to which it could claim scope for prognosis; they were
  and Others against Commission of the European
                               Communities                                     specific measures whose effects were not only
                                                                               foreseeable but also specifically intended.
                           ( Case C-221/97 P)
                              ( 97/C 252/31 )                            (') OJN0CI8I , 14 . 6 . 1997, p . 11 .
                                                                         (2 ) OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 12 .
  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 April
  1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
  of the European Communities in Case T-3 90/94 ( J )
  between Aloys Schroder and Others and the Commission
  of the European Communities was brought before the
  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 June
  1997 by Aloys Schroder, Jan Thamann and Karl-Julius                    Action brought on 17 June 1997 by the Commission of
  Thamann, acting in the capacity of partners in                            the European Communities against the French Republic
  Zuchtschweine Epe GbR, Neuenkirchen, represented                                                  ( Case C-225/97)
  by Rudolf Brenken, of Rentzmann und Brenken,
  Quakenbriick, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                             ( 97/C 252/32 )
  at the Chambers of Michel Molitor, Pierre Feltgen and
  Andre Harpas, 14a Rue des Bains, Luxembourg.
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
  The appellants maintain the claims submitted in the                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
  proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the                  17 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
  European Communities (2 ) and claim that the Court of                  Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal
  Justice should:                                                        Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
  — order the respondent to pay DM 173 174,45 as                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      compensation for the damage arising from the
      contested decisions,
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         that the Court should :
  — order the respondents to pay the costs.
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    — declare that, by adopting Law No 93/1416 of
                                                                              29 December 1993 as a measure for the transposition
  — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing: the Court                    into national law of the provisions of Council
      of First Instance did not take account of significant                   Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      arguments of the applicants and at any rate did not                     coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      refer to them, or referred to them incorrectly, in the                  provisions relating to the application of Community
      contested judgment. This applies in particular to the                   rules on the procurement procedures of entities
      argument that the definition, according to                              operating in the water, energy, transport and
      administrative borders, of the areas to be covered by                   telecommunications sectors ( ! ), the French Republic
      the bans was inappropriate and that only the criterion                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 (2 ),
      of distance away from the infected herds was the                        2 ( 1 ) (c ) and 2 ( 5 ) and Chapters 2 and 4 of Directive
      appropriate means of fighting the disease.                              92/ 13/EEC,
  — Infringement of Community law: an infringement of
      Community law resides in particular in the application             — order the French Republic to pay the costs.