CELEX: C1997/295/24
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-268/97)

C 295/ 16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
— The Court of First Instance errs in law, and in any                   Action brought on 22 July 1997 by the Commission of the
       event fails to give sufficient reasons, in its finding in         European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
       paragraphs 146 to 153 that the decision of 2 July
                                                                                                 ( Case C-268/97 )
       1992, containing the Commission's rejection of the
       complaints of Florimex and Others, is based on an                                           ( 97/C 295/24 )
       interpretation and application of the first sentence of
       Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 having a wider
       scope than was the case with earlier decisions .
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice on 22 July 1997 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented
— In paragraphs 155 to 169, the Court of First Instance                 by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Lena Strom, a
       comes wrongly and, moreover, incomprehensibly to                 member of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
       the conclusion that the contested decision, as clarified         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
       in the course of the proceedings, with regard to the             Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
       VBA's survival is not sufficient to demonstrate that the
       user fee is necessary for attainment of the objectives
       set out in Article 39 of the Treaty within the meaning
       of the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation           The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                        that the Court should :
       No 26 , and used the wrong legal standard for the
       application of that provision or at least erred in law in
       its application of the first sentence of Article 2 ( 1 ) of
       Regulation No 26 . The Court exceeded its powers by              — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
       supplementing the facts with suppositions which were,                period all the measures necessary to comply with
       moreover, incorrect .                                                Articles 14 and 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC
                                                                            on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions of the Member States
                                                                            relating to the protection of animals used for
— In paragraphs 170 to 183 , the Court of First Instance                    experimental and other scientific purposes ('), the
       introduces and applies the wrong legal standard, or at               Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
       least formulates a standard for which no legal support               under that directive and the Treaty,
       can be found, by posing the condition that a fee
       charged in the interest of the VBA's survival cannot be
       accepted unless it is levied on a proportionate basis, as
       consideration for a service or other advantage whose             — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
       value is such as to justify the amount charged, or at
        least the Court's considerations in that regard are
        incomprehensible .                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— In paragraphs 184 to 186 , the Court of First Instance                — In respect of Article 14 of the Directive, the
        wrongly and, moreover, incomprehensibly, considers                  requirement regarding appropriate training is only
        that the Commission based its rejection of Florimex 's              satisfied, under Belgian law, as regards a ' maitre
        complaints ( also ) on the consideration that the user fee          d'experience' ( master of experiments ), whereas the
        has an effect analogous to that of a minimum auction                said article refers to all 'persons who carry out
        price , and consequently finds, on the basis of those               experiments or take part in them'.
        considerations, that the Commission's statement of
        reasons was insufficient .
                                                                        — In respect of Article 22 of the Directive, it is not
                                                                             sufficient to refer, as Belgium has done , to the rules
                                                                            transposing the directives for the harmonization of
— In paragraphs 191 to 195 , the Court of First Instance                     standards and protocols in respect of the testing of
        wrongly, or at least incomprehensibly and without                    proprietary medicinal products and medicaments . The
        stating sufficient reasons, proceeds on the basis that a             aim of Directive 86/609/EEC is the protection of
        charge levied by the VBA on holders of trade                         animals and the avoidance of duplicate testing:
        agreements and a charge levied on direct supplies must               Article 22 refers in general to all experiments 'for the
        be equal unless there is a difference between the two                purpose of satisfying national or Community health
        types of supply.                                                     and safety legislation ' and therefore not solely to the
                                                                             testing of medicaments for human and veterinary use .
 f 1 ) Gottrup-Klim v. Dansk Landbrugs Grovvareselskab [ 1994 ]
       ECR 1-5641 , paragraphs 34 and 35 .                               O OJ L 358 , 18 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .