CELEX: C2003/031/08
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-400/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten

8.2.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/5
The determination of the time when the fixing (finding) should          The applicant claims that the Court should:
have taken place makes it possible to calculate the period
within which the own resources in question should have been
credited to the Commission’s account, in accordance with                —     Declare that
Article 10 of Regulation No 1552/89. Failure to comply within
that period triggers the obligation to pay default interest
pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, an obli-                     (a)   by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
gation which, according to the case-law of the Court, arises                        with Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/
without its being necessary to examine the reasons for the                          442/EEC ( 1), amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2),
failure to comply within that period.                                               inasmuch as it failed to take the necessary measures
                                                                                    to ensure that waste from the pig farm located in ‘El
                                                                                    Pago de la Media Legua’ is recovered or disposed of
( 1) OJ 1994 L 293, p. 9.
                                                                                    without endangering human health and without
( 2) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                                    harming the environment and insofar as the farm
                                                                                    was not covered by the authorisation required under
                                                                                    the directive and by failing to carry out the requisite
                                                                                    regular checks in respect of such establishments;
                                                                              (b) by failing to carry out an impact assessment prior to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                                    the construction or modification of the project,
gericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case
                                                                                    contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(2)
of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                                    of Council Directive 85/337/EEC ( 3), either in its
      represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten
                                                                                    original wording or as amended by Directive 97/11/
                                                                                    EC (4);
                          (Case C-400/02)
                           (2003/C 31/08)                                     (c)   by failing to carry out the requisite hydrological
                                                                                    studies in the area affected by pollution, in accord-
                                                                                    ance with Articles 3(b), 5(1) and 7 of Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive 80/68/EEC (5);
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                     (d) by not subjecting urban waste-water from the
the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,                      agglomeration of Vera to treatment which is more
represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten (Local Office                        stringent than that described in Article 4, as required
for Defence Expenditure) on the following question:                                 under Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/
                                                                                    EEC ( 6);
Is Article 39 EC infringed by the fact that for the purposes of
calculating the basis of assessment of interim assistance in a
                                                                              (e)   by failing to declare the Rambla de Mojácar a
case arising under Paragraph 4(1)(b) of the collective agreement
                                                                                    vulnerable area, contrary to Article 3(1), (2) and (4)
on social security account must be taken of the notional
                                                                                    of Directive 91/676/EEC (7);
German tax on emoluments (second sentence of Para-
graph 4(3)(b) of that collective agreement) if the former
employee lives and is subject to tax abroad?
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned directives; and
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Spain
                          (Case C-416/02)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 31/09)
                                                                        —     Infringements (a) to (c) relate to the construction and
                                                                              running of an intensive pig farm situated in ‘El pago de la
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     Media Legua’, in the municipal district of Vera, in the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                    province of Almeria. The Spanish authorities admit that
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                        that pig farm is illegal and is not covered by a municipal
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                    licence, so that it must be deemed not to have the
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           requisite authorisation required by Article 9 of Directive