CELEX: C2001/331/26
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-392/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

24.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/15
period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
expired on 1 January 2000 without the United Kingdom                   by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of De Danske
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the             Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattesty-
Directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                                         relsen
                                                                                               (Case C-383/01)
(1) OJ L 001, 5.1.1999, p. 1-2.
                                                                                               (2001/C 331/25)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by
Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission of                  the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                    received at the Court Registry on 5 October 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of De Danske Bilimportører v
                                                                       Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen (Duty and Taxation
                        (Case C-382/01)                                Authority of the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 331/24)
                                                                       1.   Can an indirect duty (registration duty) charged by a
                                                                            Member State, which in the case of new cars amounts to
                                                                            105 % of DKK 52 800 and 180 % of the remainder of
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                 the taxable value, be a measure having an effect equivalent
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October                   to a quantitative restriction on imports and for that
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         reason prohibited under Article 28 EC (reference is made
represented by Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with an                in this connection to the Court’s judgment in Case
address for service in Luxembourg.                                          C-47/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509,
                                                                            paragraph 13)?
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                          2.   If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’: can that registration
                                                                            duty be justified on the grounds that are mentioned in
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or             Article 30 EC or follow from the Court’s case-law on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                Article 28 EC (reference is made to Case 120/78 Rewe-
      European Parliament and Council Directive 98/78/EC of                 Zentral [1979] ECR 649)?
      27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of
      insurance undertakings in an insurance group (1), or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission of
      those measures, the United Kingdom has failed fulfil its
      obligations under that Directive,
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                     Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                               (Case C-392/01)
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                                  (2001/C 331/26)
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 5 June 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
                                                                       ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1-12.                                      represented by Isabel Martı́nez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.11.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions needed in order         —     set aside the order of the President of the Court of
      to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European                   First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997                         Euroalliages and Others v Commission;
      amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
      ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
      or, in any event, by failing to have informed the                 —     dismiss the application for interim measures in Case
      Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-                T-132/01 R; and
      ive provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 3(1) of the Directive,
                                                                        —     order the applicants to pay the costs occasioned by this
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                            appeal, as well as by the application for interim relief and
                                                                              the application to amend the order of 1 August 2001.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain was           Pleas in law and main arguments
obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the
requirements of the Directive by 23 April 2000 at the latest
and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. However,
the Kingdom of Spain has not complied with those obligations,           —     The order misconstrued Article 3(1) of Council Regula-
since it has failed to take the measures necessary to incorporate             tion(EC) No 384/96 (1) in finding that‘ the term “material”
the Directive into the Spanish legal system.                                  can only be understood as a synonym for “serious”’. There
                                                                              is nothing in that Regulation to support the conclusion
                                                                              that a ‘material’ injury within the meaning of Article 3 of
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18 .                                             the Regulation is the same as the ‘serious’ damage which
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.                                               must be established for the purposes of an application
                                                                              for interim measures.
                                                                        —     The order failed to have regard to the case-law on
                                                                              exceptional circumstances in finding that the circum-
                                                                              stances of this case justified departing from settled case-
                                                                              law.
Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the order made on
1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First                    —     The order failed to have regard to the case-law in
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R                       characterising the damage possibly suffered by the appli-
between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Var-                       cants as ‘irreparable’.
gon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                        (Alternatively)
                       (Case C-404/01 P(R))
                          (2001/C 331/27)                               —     In balancing the interests at stake, the contested order:
                                                                              adopts inconsistent reasoning in finding that the regis-
An appeal against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the                      tration of imports without requiring importers to deposit
President of the Court of First Instance of the European                      guarantees would not create an irreversible situation,
Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages,                          whereas registration with the deposit of guarantees would
Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlan-                 do so; and
tica, and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 (by fax received on                            misinterprets Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
11.10.01) by the Commission of the European Communities                       (which implements the Community’s obligations under
represented by V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, acting as Agents,                  Article 7 of the GATT agreement on anti-dumping) in
and P. Bentley, Barrister, with an address for service in                     concluding that the registration of imports would not
Luxembourg.                                                                   have the same effect as anti-dumping measures.