CELEX: C1997/295/35
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-286/97)

27. 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Portuguese
The third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty                                                          Republic
requires the Member States to which a directive is                                                    ( Case C-285/97)
addressed to ensure that their legislation is in compliance
with the directive within the prescribed period . When the                                              ( 97/C 295/34 )
period prescribed in Article 10 of Directive 92/73/EEC
expired on 31 December 1993 , France had not adopted
the necessary measures .                                                  An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(>) OJ L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 8 .
                                                                          on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .                   Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
(») OJ L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 13 .                                     of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                 Belgium                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           ( Case C-283/97 )                                     Commission Directive 94/5 1 /EC (') of 7 November
                                                                                 1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                             ( 97/C 295/33 )                                     90/21 9/EEC ( 2 ) on the contained use of genetically
                                                                                 modified micro-organisms, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
before the Court of Justice on 1 August 1997 by the                              Article 2 of Directive 94/5 1 /EC,
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal Service,
and O. Couvert-Castera, a national civil servant on                       — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
secondment to that service, acting as Agents, with an                            the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      under those provisions,
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should :                                                   — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
       92/73/EEC ( x ) of 22 September 1992 widening the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
       scope of Directives 65/65/EEC (2) and 75/31 9/EEC ( 3 )            those in Case C-282/97 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposing
       on the approximation of provisions laid down by                    the Directive expired on 30 April 1995 .
       law, regulation or administrative action relating to
       medicinal products and laying down additional                      (') OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p . 29 .
       provisions on homeopathic medicinal products, the                  ( 2 ) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            (■') See page 20 of this Official Journal .
       under the EC Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Action brought on 1 August 1997 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those                    of the European Communities against the Portuguese
submitted in Case C-282/97 (4 ).                                                                             Republic
                                                                                                      ( Case C-286/97
O OJ L 297, 13 . 10.1992, p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1965—1966 , p. 20 .                                                    97/C 295/35 )
(') OJ L 147, 9 . 6.1975 , p . 13 .
( 4 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .
                                                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- C29SI22                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27 . 9 . 97
on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                       Must Articles 9 and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 of
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                   28 December 1992 (') be interpreted as meaning that any
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for               person delivering milk , regardless of the legal nature of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                the relationship which gave rise to the delivery, may be
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                         treated as a 'purchaser' liable to pay the additional levy
                                                                         and , in particular, as meaning that a group of cooperatives
                                                                         may be so regarded with respect to milk delivered, not
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             sold, to it by the members of the cooperative ?
                                                                         (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/
       EC (') of 20 December 1994 on the control of volatile
       organic compound (VOC ) emissions resulting from the
        storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to
        service stations, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
        fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
        Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 10 ( 1 ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
        Directive 94/63/EC ,                                             Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that
                                                                         court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Consorzio fra i
                                                                           Caseifici dell'Altopiano di Asiago against Regione Veneto
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform                                           ( Case C-288/97
        the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations                                          ( 97/C 295/37 )
        under those provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                         Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's
                                                                          Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 17 July 1997, received at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Consorzio fra i Caseifici
                                                                         dell'Altopiano di Asiago v. Regione Veneto on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                    following questions :
those in Case C-282/97 ( 2 ); the time-limit for transposing
the Directive expired on 31 December 1995 .
 (') OJ L 365 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 24 .
                                                                          1 . Must Articles 9 and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/
 ( 2 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .                                  92 of 28 December 1992 (') be interpreted as meaning
                                                                              that any person delivering milk, regardless of the legal
                                                                              nature of the relationship which gave rise to the
                                                                               delivery, may be treated as a 'purchaser' liable to pay
                                                                               the additional levy and, in particular, as meaning that
                                                                               a group of cooperatives may be so regarded with
                                                                               respect to milk delivered, not sold, to it by the
                                                                               members of the cooperative ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
 Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that
 court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Claudio Matteazzi
              against Caseificio Sociale San Rocco scarl                  2 . Must Article 2 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 of
                            ( Case C-287/97 )                                  28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               purchasers are actually and personally required to
                              ( 97/C 295/36 )                                  deduct from the amount paid to producers the amount
                                                                               payable by way of additional levy, or that it is merely
                                                                               a right conferred in the purchaser's interests, failure to
                                                                               exercise which cannot entail penalties ?
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  European Communities by order of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's             (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
  Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 17 July 1997, received at
  the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a preliminary
  ruling in the case of Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
  Sociale San Rocco scarl on the following question :