CELEX: C2003/124/18
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-135/03: Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

24.5.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/11
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the                      referring thereto on agricultural products and food-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                         stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                         95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 ( 3); by failing to adopt
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.                         the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of
                                                                                      that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-
                                                                                      tion with Article 10a of the abovementioned
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                           amended regulation; and by failing to adopt
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court                         measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism                            as to the method of manufacture or production
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by                        of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                            abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                    with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on                           the European Parliament and of the Council of
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.                                    20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                      of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                      presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 4); and
Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District
                                                                                —     by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.                               contrary to the same provisions, use of the term
                                                                                      ‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
                                                                                      for dairy products in respect of which that term has
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
                                                                                      been customarily and continuously used when they
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.03.2001, p. 24.                                                      have not been obtained in accordance with organic
( 3) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 39.                                                       production methods,
( 4) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 45.
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
                                                                                particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-135/03)
                         (2003/C 124/18)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo            derivatives of the term designating organic agricultural
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          methods in any of the official languages of the European
Luxembourg.                                                               Community for products which have not been obtained by
                                                                          means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
                                                                          term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.
—     Declare that:
      —      by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in
             current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in               National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
             combination with other terms, for products which             the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
             have not been obtained in accordance with organic            for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
             production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in          with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
             conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation             (Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
             (EEC) No 2092/91 ( 1) of 24 June 1991 on organic             by Real Decreto 506/2001, infringes Regulation (EEC)
             production of agricultural products and indications          No 2092/91.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.5.2003
Such national legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in            The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,           5 December 2001.
quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
ture or production.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
( 1) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
     Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
     tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
     products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
     plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
     of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
     agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-        Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission
     duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
( 4) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.                                                                               Sweden
                                                                                                    (Case C-141/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 124/20)
Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
                            of Germany
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-139/03)
                          (2003/C 124/19)                                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other
                                                                                 provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive
                                                                                 2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     between Member States and public undertakings or, in
ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                          any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and                       the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service                 under the directive, and
in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,               Pleas in law and principal arguments
       regulations and administrative provisions to implement
       Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000
       amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
                                                                           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
       Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
       visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative              on 31 July 2001.
       action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the
       Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the              (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
       directive;                                                          (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
2.     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.