CELEX: C1997/252/34
Language: en
Date: 1997-08-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-229/97)

16 . 8 . 97             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from                         The appellant complains that Community law has been
     Articles 1 (2 ), 2 ( 1 ) (c ) and 2 ( 5 ) of the Directive: Law       infringed and, in particular, that, in reaching its decision,
     No 93/1416 does not guarantee that the penalty will                   the Court of First Instance disregarded its obligation to
     have a genuinely dissuasive effect. It establishes, by                extrapolate the law.
     way of derogation, a specific interlocutory procedure
     which is less restrictive than that provided for under
     national civil law.                                                   (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 26 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ No C 181 , 4 . 6 . 1997, p. 13 .
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from
     Chapter 2 of the Directive: the fact that recourse to
     the attestation procedure is optional for the
     contracting entities does not in any way mean that the
     attestation system is optional for the Member States,
     which are obliged to organize a system complying                      Action brought on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of
     with the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Directive .                   the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                                            Republic
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from                                                     ( Case C-229/97)
     Chapter 4 of the Directive: France has failed to specify
     the detailed rules governing intervention by the                                                    ( 97/C 252/34 )
     national authorities called upon to forward requests
     for conciliation to the Commission (Article 9 ( 2 ) of
     the Directive ). Lastly, Chapter 4 should have been                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     transposed in its entirety, if only for the purposes of               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     informing the persons concerned, as defined in                        on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
     Article 9 ( 1 ), of the possibility open to them of having             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
     recourse to conciliation .                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
(') OJ No L 76 , 23 . 3 . 1992, p . 14 .
                                                                            Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                  period the laws, regulations or administrative
Appeal brought on 20 June 1997 by Hedwig Kuchlenz­                                provisions necessary to comply fully and correctly
Winter against the judgment delivered on 16 April 1997                            with Council Directive 79/869/EEC H of 9 October
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                        1979 concerning the methods of measurement and
European Communities in Case T-66/95 between Hedwig                               frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water
Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the European                                intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the
                              Communities
                                                                                  Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
                         ( Case C-228/97 P)                                       fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
                             ( 97/C 252/33 )                                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 13 of
                                                                                  Directive 79/869/EEC in combination with Article 395
                                                                                  and Annex XXXVI of the Act of Accession ( 2 ),
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 April
 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-66/95 between                         — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the                                  the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
 European Communities was brought before the Court of                             Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Justice of the European Communities on 20 June 1997 by                            under those provisions,
 Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, represented by Dieter Rogalla,
 Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
 at the Chambers of Decker, Braun & Wagner, 16 Avenue
 Marie-Therese .
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
 — uphold all four heads of claim ( l ) advanced by the                      a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
      applicant and set aside the judgment (2 ) of the Court                 upon each Member State to which it is addressed. In the
      of First Instance,                                                     present case, under Article 13 of Directive 79/869/EEC,
                                                                             the Member States are to bring into force the necessary
 — order the respondent to pay all the costs, including                      provisions within two years of its notification. That period
      those of the proceedings before the Court of First                     expired on 1 January 1989 without Portugal having
      Instance .                                                             adopted the provisions necessary to comply with, firstly,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16 . 8 . 97
Article 3 ( 3 ) and Columns C, D and E of Annex I to the                      national driving licence issued by a Member State or a
Directive and, secondly, Article 4 (2 ), Article 5 or footnote                Community model driving licence and who could have
No 10 to Annex I to the Directive .                                           obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for
                                                                              that licence, but on 27 July 1993 had not made that
                                                                              exchange within the prescribed period, from being
(>) OJ No L 271 , 29 . 10 . 1979, p . 44 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 .
                                                                             treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered
                                                                             punishable by imprisonment or a fine ?
                                                                       (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1980, p . 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 237, 24 . 8 . 1991 , p. 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
van Belgie by order of that court of 17 June 1997 in the
     case of Awoyemi Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie
                           Case C-230/97 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
                            ( 97/C 252/35 )                            Staat, Netherlands, by judgment of that court of 17 June
                                                                       1997 in the case of A. M. L. Van Rooij v. Dagelijks
                                                                                    Bestuur van het Waterschap de Dommel
                                                                                                   Case C-231 /97 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Hof van Cassatie                                              ( 97/C 252/36 )
van Belgie ( Belgian Court of Cassation ) of 17 June 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 24 June
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Awoyemi
Ibiyinka against Openbaar Ministerie on the following                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
questions :
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
                                                                       State ( Council of State ), Netherlands, of 17 June 1997,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June
                                                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. M. L. Van
1 . Do the provisions of the first Council Directive 80/               Rooij v. Dagelijks Bestuur van het Waterschap de Dommel
       1263/EEC (*) of 4 December 1980 on the introduction
                                                                       ( Management Committee of the Dommel Water Board ) on
       of a Community driving licence, in particular Article 8         the following questions :
       thereof, preclude the driving of a motor vehicle by a
       person who is not a citizen of the European Union but
       who holds a national driving licence issued by a                1 . Must the term 'discharge' in Article 1 ( 2 ) ( d ) of
       Member State or a Community model driving licence                      Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on
       and who could have obtained a licence from the host
                                                                             pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
       State in exchange for it, but who did not do so within                 discharged into the aquatic environment of the
       the prescribed period, from being treated as driving                   Community ( OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976, p. 23 ) be
       without a licence and thus rendered punishable by                      interpreted to include the precipitation of
       imprisonment or a fine ?                                              contaminated water on to surface water ? In that
                                                                             connection does the distance from which the steam in
                                                                              question is precipitated onto the surface water have
2 . Do Article 1 (2 ) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC ( 2 )                   any relevance ?
       of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, providing for
       mutual recognition for driving licences issued by the
       Member States, and the right provided for in                    2 . Does the term 'discharge' cover steam first precipitated
       Article 8 ( 1 ) of that Directive to exchange licences                 onto land and roofs and, then reaching the surface
       mean that a person who is not a citizen of the                        water, by way of storm water drains, whether
       European Union, but who holds a national driving                       belonging to the establishment concerned or to
       licence issued by a Member State or a Community                       residential or other buildings ? Is it relevant to the
       model driving licence and has his normal residence in                  reply to be given to this question whether the
       the territory of another Member State, has the right,                 contaminated steam reaches the surface water by way
       even where there are no national rules in this regard,                 of the    storm   water      drains  of the establishment
       to rely on the application of those provisions in court               concerned or via those belonging to third parties ?
       proceedings as from 1 July 1996 ?
                                                                       3 . If Questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the negative,
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, do                     is it permissible for national legislation to assign a
       Articles 1 (2 ) and 8 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 91/439/               different, more wide-ranging meaning to the term
       EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences have                           'discharge' than that contained in the Directive ?
       retroactive effect in the sense that they preclude the
       driving of a motor vehicle by a person who is not a
       citizen of the European Union but who holds a