CELEX: C1998/340/19
Language: en
Date: 1998-11-07 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 September 1998 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-342/98)

7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 340/11
In addition to the infringement of those basic provisions,           The appellant claims that the Court should:
the Council has breached the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations.
                                                                     Ð set aside the judgment delivered in Case T-27/97;
Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty:
                                                                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    It is indisputable that even acts of general application,
    such as regulations, must provide a sufficient
    statement of the reasons on which they are based,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    especially with regard to provisions directly
    concerning the interests of separate recognisable
    classes of traders (such as, in this case, Italian beet          Breach of Community law by the Court of First Instance
    growers).                                                        in its assessment of the pleas in law and arguments relied
                                                                     on in Case T-72/97 (1).
    Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 states no reasons for
    fixing the derived intervention price for five other
                                                                     (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997, p. 16.
    Member States but not for Italy. Nor are any reasons
    provided in Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 in respect of
    the fixing of the intervention price.
Ð Breach of the principle of equal treatment:
    Whilst Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 failed            Action brought on 18 September 1998 by Commission of
    to fix the derived intervention price for white sugar            the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
    for Italy, it confirmed that price for the United                                         Luxembourg
    Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal, Finland and Spain.
                                                                                            (Case C-342/98)
    Albeit unaware of the reasons which led to Italy's                                       (98/C 340/19)
    being denied a derived intervention price and of the
    reasons for which that price was confirmed for the
    other Member States, the Italian Government must
                                                                     An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
    claim that the Council has breached the principle of
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    equality and afforded it unequal treatment.
                                                                     Communities on 18 September 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities, represented by GeÂrard
(1) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 3.                                     Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
(2) OJ L 185 of 30.6.1998, p. 1.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
(3) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                     Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                     that the Court should:
Appeal brought on 17 September 1998 by Proderec Ð
FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos ACE                 Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the                     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Case T-72/97 between Proderec                     Commission Directive 95/33/EC of 10 July 1995,
Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos                        amending Council Directive 82/471/EEC concerning
  ACE and the Commission of the European Communities                      certain products used in animal nutrition (1),
                      (Case C-341/98 P)                                   Commission Directive 95/44/EC of 26 July 1995
                                                                          establishing the conditions under which certain
                        (98/C 340/18)
                                                                          harmful organisms, plants, plant products and other
                                                                          objects listed in Annexes I to V to Council Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998                  77/93/EEC may be introduced into or moved within
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                   the Community for trial or scientific purposes or for
the European Communities in Case T-72/97 between                          work on varietal selections (2) and Commission
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       Directive 96/78/EC of 6 December 1996 amending
Humanos ACE and the Commission of the European                            certain Annexes to Council Directive 77/93/EEC on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                    protective measures against the introduction into the
the European Communities on 17 September 1998 by                          Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant
Proderec Ð FormacËaÄo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                       products and against their spread within the
Humanos ACE, represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                      Community (3), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
care of Luísa Maria Miranda Sousa Pires, 4a rue Jean                      Directive 95/33/EC, Article 4 of Directive 95/44/EC
JaureÁs.                                                                  and Article 2 of Directive 96/78/EC;
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                    provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
     costs.                                                         to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
put forward in Case C-335/98; the time-limits prescribed
by the directives expired on 30 June 1996, 1 February
1996 and 1 January 1997 respectively.                               Action brought on 22 September 1998 by Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ L 167 of 18.7.1995, p. 17.                                                               Belgium
(2) OJ L 184 of 3.8.1995, p. 34.                                                            (Case C-347/98)
(3) OJ L 321 of 2.12.1996, p. 20.
                                                                                             (98/C 340/21)
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 22 September 1998 by the Commission of the
Action brought on 22 September 1998 by the Commission               European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
       of the European Communities against Ireland                  Gouloussis and Peter Hillencamp, acting as Agents, with
                                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                       (Case C-346/98)                              Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (98/C 340/20)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 September                 Ð declare that, by levying personal contributions of
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     13,07 % on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                      payable to persons who do not reside in Belgium and
Adviser, and Michael Shotter, a national official seconded              who are no longer subject to the Belgian social
to the Commission under an arrangement for the                          security system, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for            fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2)(f) of Council
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1);
Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
Centre Wagner.                                                      Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Persons who no longer work in an employed or self-
Ð declare that by failing to adopt and publish the laws,
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           employed capacity in Belgium and who have transferred
                                                                    their residence to another Member State are exclusively
    comply with Directive 94/60/EC of the European
                                                                    subject to the laws of that Member State. Consequently,
    Parliament and the Council of 20 December 1994
    amending for the fourteenth time Council Directive              the Belgian authorities are not authorised to levy
                                                                    contributions on Belgian occupational sickness pensions
    76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions of the                payable to persons who are in such a situation.
    Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances (1),          Belgium wrongly refers to the benefits payable under
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,             Article 52 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to persons
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that         who sustain an accident at work or who contract an
    Directive; and                                                  occupational disease. Those benefits are not sickness
                                                                    benefits within the meaning of the first chapter of the
                                                                    regulation; they constitute other benefits in kind which are
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   specifically designed to meet needs arising from accidents
                                                                    at work or occupational diseases. Unlike the rule laid
                                                                    down in Article 33, Chapter 4 of Regulation (EEC)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    No 1408/71 contains no provision enabling the competent
                                                                    State to levy contributions in order to finance benefits
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall         payable as a result of an accident at work or an
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each              occupational disease.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid             (1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
down in the directive. That period expired on
20 December 1995 without Ireland having enacted the