CELEX: C1998/327/19
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-328/98)

C 327/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
Supplementary to the first three questions:                          Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the French Republic
4. Is a contracting entity which falls within the scope                                       (Case C-327/98)
     ratione personae of Directive 93/38/EEC obliged,                                          (98/C 327/18)
     where a contract concluded by it contains elements of
     a service contract within the meaning of Article 1(4)(a)
     of Directive 93/38/EEC together with elements of a
     different contractual nature which are not within the           An action against the French Republic was brought before
     scope of that directive, to sever the part of the overall       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     contract which is subject to Directive 93/38/EEC, in so         4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
     far as that is technically possible and economically            Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
     reasonable, and make that part the subject of a                 Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of that                national civil servant on secondment to its legal Service,
     directive, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-3/            acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     88 (3) before the entry into force of Directive 92/50/          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
     EEC with respect to a contract which was not subject            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     as a whole to Council Directive 77/62/EEC (4)?
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit
5. Is the contractual concession of the exclusive right                  to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
     to operate a service for financial gain, which will                 measures necessary in order to comply with Articles 9,
     give the service provider an income which cannot                    10, 11, 12 and 14 of Council Directive 93/15/EEC of
     be determined but which in the light of general                     5 April 1993 on the harmonization of the provisions
     experience will not be inconsiderable and may be                    relating to the placing on the market and supervision
     expected to exceed the costs of providing the service,              of explosives for civil uses (1), the French Republic has
     to be regarded as payment for the provision of the                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
     service, as the Court of Justice held in Case C-272/
     91 (5) in connection with a supply contract and a right
     ceded by the public authorities in lieu of payment?             Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Supplementary to the above questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
6. Are the provisions of Article 1(4)(a) and (c) of
     Directive 93/38/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that           Under Article 19(1) of Directive 93/15/EEC, Member
     a contract which provides for the provision of services         States are required to bring into force the provisions
     within the meaning of Annex XVI A, category 15,                 necessary to comply with Articles 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
     loses the nature of a service contract and becomes a            of that directive before 30 September 1993.
     supply contract if the result of the service is the
     production of a large number of identical tangible
     objects which have an economic value and thus                   The Commission has received no communication from
     constitute goods within the meaning of Articles 9 and           the French authorities regarding the adoption of the
     30 of the EC Treaty?                                            provisions referred to above.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 121, 15.5.1993, p. 20.
If that question is answered in the affirmative,
7. Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-3/88
     to be interpreted as meaning that such a supply
     contract is to be severed from the other components
     of the service contract and made the subject of a
     procurement procedure under Article 1(7) of Directive           Action brought on 4 September 1998 by the Commission
     93/38/EEC, in so far as this is technically possible and        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     economically reasonable?                                                                     Belgium
                                                                                              (Case C-328/98)
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.                                                                 (98/C 327/19)
(3) [1989] ECR 4035.
(4) OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1.
(5) [1992] ECR I-3929.                                               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 4 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/13
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Ð declare that, by failing to communicate and to adopt
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             necessary in order to comply with Commission
                                                                      Directive 95/32/EC of 7 July 1995 relating to methods
                                                                      of analysis necessary for checking the composition of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           cosmetic products (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                                                                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
    period, the laws, regulations or administrative
    provisions necessary to comply with European                  Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC (1) of
    20 December 1994 amending for the 14th time
    Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
    the Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and         Article 2 of Commission Directive 95/32/EC requires the
    preparations or by failing to inform the Commission           Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations
    thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under the EC Treaty; and                          that directive by no later than 30 September 1996.
Ð Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                  That deadline has expired but the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                  has not yet taken the requisite internal steps to transpose
                                                                  the directive in issue.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  (1) OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 20.
Under Article 2(1) of European Parliament and Council
Directive 94/60/EC, Member States are to adopt and
publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with the directive no later than one
year after the date of its adoption.
That time-limit expired on 20 December 1994 without the           Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission
Kingdom of Belgium having adopted and published the                      of the European Communities against Ireland
necessary provisions in order to comply therewith.                                         (Case C-331/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 327/21)
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                  An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                  1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                  represented by Richard Wainwright, principal legal
Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission              adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                            Belgium                               member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                  Wagner, Kirchberg.
                       (Case C-329/98)
                        (98/C 327/20)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           Ð declare that by not prohibiting Irish sanitary
on 7 September 1998 by the Commission of the European                 authorities from making any direct discharges of List I
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal                substances to groundwater nor subjecting such
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in              authorities to any system of prior investigation and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  authorization for direct discharges of List II
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             substances, contrary, in particular, to Articles 3, 4 and