CELEX: C2003/031/13
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-437/02: Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

C 31/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            8.2.2003
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            1.    The Commission considers that the tax which is levied in
                                                                                  respect of the validation of invoices for the import of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                  pharmaceutical products that come from the Community
                                                                                  is contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty (now Article 25
1.     The Commission considers that the measures taken are
                                                                                  EC) and thus constitutes a charge having an effect
       not sufficient to ensure that the landfill site ‘Pera Galinon’
                                                                                  equivalent to that of customs duty.
       is operated in a manner which does not create risks to
       the natural and man-made environment and which is
       consistent with the obligations arising from Article 4 of            2.    The Commission observes that classification as a charge
       the directive.                                                             having equivalent effect does not depend on what the
                                                                                  charge is called or its amount.
2.     In the Commission’s view, the Hellenic Republic has
       exceeded the limits of the discretion conferred on it by             3.    None of the three exceptions preventing classification as
       Article 4 of the directive, since over a long period it has                a charge having equivalent effect applies.
       not taken effective action to avert pollution of the
       environment and to protect the health of inhabitants
                                                                            4.    Infringement of Article 133 of the EC Treaty.
       from the unlawful deposit of waste at the Pera Galinon
       site in the prefecture of Heraklion, Crete.
3.     The Commission observes that the landfill site in question
       operates without a permit which meets the conditions
       laid down in Article 9 of the directive.
( 1) OJ No L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ No L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.                                          Action brought on 3 December 2002 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                           Finland
                                                                                                     (Case C-437/02)
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the                                                             (2003/C 31/13)
Commission of the European Communities against the
                         Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-426/02)                                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                           (2003/C 31/12)                                   3 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and T. van Rijn,
                                                                            acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 No-
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, of
its Legal Service.                                                          —     declare that
                                                                                  1.    by failing to enact appropriate detailed rules for the
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                            distribution and use of the fishing rights allocated to
                                                                                        it,
—      declare that by applying, for the benefit of the Ethniko
       Organismo Farmakon (National Organisation for Medi-
       cines), a charge in respect of the validation of invoices on               2.    and by failing to monitor compliance with the
       the import of raw materials for pharmaceutical use, semi-                        Community legislation on preservation by monitor-
       finished products and finished products from other                               ing fishing and related activities and by appropriate
       Member States or non-member countries, the Hellenic                              inspection of the fishing fleet and related activities,
       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 23, 25 and 133 of the Treaty establishing the                     3.    and by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by
       European Community;                                                              vessels flying its flag or registered in its territory
                                                                                        when the quotas allocated to it were deemed to be
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                    exhausted,
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 31/9
       4.   and by failing to institute criminal or administrative        A bse n c e of c r i m i n al p r o c e e d i n gs o r ad m i n-
            proceedings against masters or other persons                  i s tra ti v e ac ti on
            responsible for fishing taking place after the prohib-
            ition of fishing,
                                                                          It appears from the Finnish Government’s answer to the
                                                                          Commission’s reasoned opinion that no measures in accord-
       the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations       ance with Article 31 of the monitoring Regulation No 2847/
       under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 ( 1) and            93 have been taken.
       Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
       and
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
—      order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                         establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
                                                                               (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1).
                                                                          (2 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
                                                                               establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
                                                                               policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
A bs ence o f ap p rop ri at e deta i l ed rul es con -
c erni n g t he use of al l o cati o ns
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from Stockholms
                                                                          tingsrätt by decision of of 29 November 2002 in the case
Certain stocks of fish referred to in the annexes to the aforesaid                          of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner
regulations were overfished in 1995 and 1996 by vessels
flying the Finnish flag. It appears from the Finnish Govern-
ment’s response to the Commission’s reasoned opinion that                                            (Case C-438/02)
Finland accepts the Commission’s complaint of overfishing in
1995 and 1996 as specified in detail in the tables annexed to
the Commission’s official notice.                                                                     (2003/C 31/14)
A bs ence of i n sp ect i on an d mon i to ri ng                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
m easu res con cern i n g th e u se o f al l oca ti o ns                  European Communities by a decision of Stockholms tingsrätt
                                                                          of 29 November 2002, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 4 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
It is clear on the basis of the excess fishing which took place           case of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner on the following questions:
in 1995 and 1996 that Finland breached Article 2 of the
monitoring regulation. In its response to the Commission’s
                                                                          1.     There is an independent system at national level for the
reasoned opinion Finland accepts that the monitoring arrange-                    testing and approval of medicinal products intended to
ments did not operate adequately. Finland refers in particular
                                                                                 maintain good quality for medicinal products and prevent
to the difficulties which derived from Finland’s accession to
                                                                                 damaging effects of medicinal products. Certain medicinal
the European Union and the changes required by membership                        products also require a prescription from a registered
to the Finnish legislation on fishing.
                                                                                 doctor. In such circumstances does Article 31 of the EC
                                                                                 Treaty preclude national legislation which provides that
                                                                                 retail trade in medicinal products may only be carried on
                                                                                 by the State or by legal persons in which the State has a
                                                                                 determining influence, the objective of which is to meet
La te sus pen si o n of fi s hi n g                                              the need for safe and effective medicinal products?
                                                                          2.     Does Article 28 of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such
A Member State which terminates fishing only when it is
                                                                                 as that described in Question 1, in the light of the
already known that the quota has been exceeded acts too late
                                                                                 information in that question.
and thus breaches its obligations under Article 21(2) of the
monitoring Regulation No 2847/93. It is clear from the
Finnish Government’s response to the Commission’s reasoned                3.     Does Article 43 of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such
opinion that the national prohibition decisions were not made                    as that described in Question 1, in the light of the
in sufficient time to prevent excess fishing.                                    information in that question.