CELEX: C1999/352/39
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-354/99: Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/25
— insofar as it is held that Article 4 of Regulation No 1534/95         The appellant claims that the Court should:
    is not of individual concern to the appellants, and the
    fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now,              1. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it declared
    after amendment, Article 230 EC), as interpreted by the                 inadmissible the action brought by the appellants for
    case-law of the Court of Justice, is thereby breached;                  annulment of Regulation No 1534/95 (1), specifically
                                                                            Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
                                                                            No 1785/81 (2), specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof, is
                                                                            unlawful;
The appellants submit that the decision of the Court of First
Instance is flawed and erroneous and therefore incompatible
                                                                        2. Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it ordered
with Community rules.                                                       the appellants to pay the costs incurred by the Council;
                                                                        3. Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
                                                                            ruling on the application made in Case T-168/95 for
(1) OJ 1995 L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.                                      annulment of Regulation (EEC) No 1534/95, specifically
(2) OJ 1995 L 110 of 17.5.1995, p. 1.                                       Article 1(f) thereof, and for a declaration that Regulation
(3) OJ 1981 L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                        (EEC) No 1785/81, specifically Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof,
                                                                            is unlawful;
                                                                        4. Should the Court of Justice deem it appropriate to
                                                                            adjudicate on the merits of Case T-168/95, in accordance
                                                                            with Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, admit
                                                                            the oral and written pleadings specifically related thereto;
                                                                        5. Order the Council to pay the costs.
Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by Società Eridan-                  Pleas and main arguments
ia SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agoindustriale SpA
(ISI), Sadam Zuccherifici, a division of Società Esercizi               As grounds for the present appeal, the appellants allege various
Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI), Sadam Castiglionese                 infringements of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Società Zuccherificio del                       In particular, they maintain that, in finding that the applicants
Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola                  were not individually concerned by Article 1(f) of the contested
SpA (SFIR) against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999                Regulation, the Court of First Instance infringed the fourth
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  paragraph of Article 230 EC (formerly Article 173 of the EC
the European Communities in Case T-168/95 between                       Treaty) as interpreted in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA and Others and
the Council of the European Union, supported by the
        Commission of the European Communities                          The appellants maintain that the judgment under appeal is
                                                                        flawed and erroneous, hence incompatible with Community
                                                                        law.
                       (Case C-352/99 P)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 148 of 30.6.1995, p. 11.
                        (1999/C 352/38)                                 (2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 1999 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-168/95 between Società Eridania Spa and Others and the
Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission,
was brought before the Court of Justice on 22 September
1999 by Società Eridania SpA, whose registered office is in
Genoa, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA (ISI),        Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
whose registered office is in Padua, Sadam Zuccherifici, a                 mission of the European Communities against Ireland
division of Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA (SECI),
whose registered office is in Bologna, Sadam Castiglionese SpA                                  (Case C-354/99)
and Sadam Abruzzo SpA, whose registered offices are in
Bologna, Società Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose regis-
tered office is at Termoli, and Società Fondiaria Industriale                                   (1999/C 352/39)
Romagnola SpA (SFIR), whose registered office is at Cesena,
incorporating, following a merger, Ponteco Zuccheri SpA,                An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
whose registered office is also at Cesena, all represented by           Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999
Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor with a right of audience before             by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
the High Court of Ireland, and Ivano Vigliotti, of the Genoa            by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaide,                   Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
L-2128 Luxembourg.                                                      Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/26                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.12.1999
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
     ensure a correct transposition of the notion ‘experiment’            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
     as defined in Article 2 of Directive 86/609/EEC (1) and to           a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct                  upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
     transposition of Articles 11 and 12 of Directive                     on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
     86/609/EEC concerning the approximation of the laws,                 laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
     States regarding the protection of animals used for exper-           to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
     imental and other scientific purposes and in failing to have         the Commission.
     an adequate system of penalties for non-compliance with
     the requirements of Directive 86/609/EEC, Ireland has                (1) Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
     failed to comply with Directive 86/609/EEC and in particu-               of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the
     lar Article 25 thereof and with its obligations under the                Member States relating to measures against the emission of
     Treaty and in particular Article 10 thereof                              gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion
                                                                              engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery (OJ L 59 of
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             27.2.1998, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Irish legislation fails to
achieve a correct transposal of directive 86/609/EEC because
it covered a narrower range of experiments than the directive,
because of a lack of coherence between the old and new                    Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Italian
provisions of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, because of a                      Republic against Council of the European Union
failure to specify who or what is covered by certain key
concepts, because of a failure to establish procedures, and
because of inadequate penalty provisions.                                                           (Case C-357/99)
(1) Council Directive of 24 November 1986, on the approximation                                     (1999/C 352/41)
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
    States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental
    and other scientific purposes, OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                          An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice on 23 September 1999 by
                                                                          the Italian Republic, represented by its Agent Professor
                                                                          Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello
                                                                          Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian
                                                                          Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaide.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                          — Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1404/99 (1) in
                                                                               so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for
                          (Case C-355/99)                                      white sugar for all areas of Italy for the sugar-marketing
                                                                               year 1999-2000, and also Article 1(2) of Council Regu-
                          (1999/C 352/40)                                      lation No 1403/99 (2) in so far as it fixes the intervention
                                                                               price for Italy as well;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 September 1999                  — Order the Council to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos             Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                         (1) The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic
                                                                               regulation, Regulation No 1785/81 (3), by fixing inter-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                    vention prices in June 1999 whereas it should have done
                                                                               so before August 1998.
1. declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               (2) Regulation No 1404/99 gives no statement of reasons for
     comply fully with European Parliament and Council Direc-                  fixing the derived intervention price for five other Member
     tive 97/68/EC (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           States without doing so for Italy. Nor are any reasons given
     under that Directive, and                                                 in Regulation No 1403/99 regarding the fixing of the
                                                                               intervention price. The contested regulations are therefore
2. order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             vitiated by the lack of any statement of reasons.