CELEX: C2000/192/13
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-139/00: Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

8.7.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 192/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   products to agricultural industries in Extremadura. It is
                                                                                  intended solely to promote stable relations between
— Manifest error of assessment, in that part of the aid                           local producers and local processing industries, by
    declared by the Commission to be incompatible has not                         ensuring supplies of raw materials to the latter (this
    been paid; no aid payments were effected after 30 June                        being something which the market alone seems to be
    1998.                                                                         unable to guarantee).
                                                                              — The Commission maintains that the criteria laid down
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account                        in its Communication on aid in the form of subsidised
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the                       short-term loans (OJ C 44 of 16.2.1996, p. 2) are not
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment                      fulfilled. However, if the aid is not granted to all
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:                 operators in the agricultural sector, the products
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement                       concerned are determined in a non-discriminatory
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on                        manner as regards aid to industries which enter into
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form                          contracts for the processing of the raw materials
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the                     purchased by them. Moreover, there is no discrimi-
    common market.                                                                nation, since the excluding criterion is not that a
                                                                                  particular sector must be involved but that operators
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with                        in any of the sectors concerned must have agreed to
    Article 253 EC:                                                               standardise their contractual relations; any sector
                                                                                  which approves a regional contract becomes eligible
    — According to the Commission, aid to industries granted                      to receive aid. Furthermore, the interest-rate rebates
         prior to 30 June 1998 cannot fall within any of the                      exclusively affect the financing arrangements for the
         derogations, provided for in Article 87(3), since it                     purchase of agricultural products pursuant to the
         adversely affects trading conditions by imposing                         approved contracts. The aid has a lasting effect on the
         restrictions on the free movement of goods. However,                     development of the sector, since it has contributed to
         that assertion is incorrect: such an adverse effect on                   the establishment of coordinated, stable contractual
         trade may prevent Article 87(3)(a) from applying, but                    relations between the industry and the primary sector,
         not Article 87(3)(a).                                                    and its effects have proved capable of developing an
                                                                                  industrial framework and of providing security for the
                                                                                  rural population. Finally, in view of the amounts
    — The Commission considers that the derogation con-                           received by the farmers concerned, it is difficult to see
         tained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable because the                in what way the common organisation of the market
         aid was granted not as regional aid but as operating                     for the products in question can have been affected.
         aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s
         reasoning is inconsistent. The aid is intended to
         promote economic development in a region where the
         standard of living is low and there is very serious
         unemployment. In particular, the industrial aid scheme
         had a clear social purpose, in that it sought to introduce
         stable relations between producers and processors,
         protecting them by means of officially approved
         contracts for the sale and purchase of raw materials             Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Commission of
         and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing indus-           the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         tries and the location of those industries in the
         production areas. In view of the foregoing, the Com-
         mission should have reasoned that the aid did not fall                                   (Case C-139/00)
         within the scope of Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact
         that the measures concerned are specific rather than                                     (2000/C 192/13)
         general. It should also, at the very least, have provided
         justification for its decision, adopted in the exercise of
         its discretion, not to authorise small-scale aid designed        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
         to mitigate an abnormally serious situation within the           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
         Community. By failing to do so, it has infringed                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
         Article 253 EC.                                                  represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC:                                    Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre.
    — The Commission maintains that the aid scheme in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         question restricts the free movement of goods
         (Article 28 EC), in that it may adversely affect trade.          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
         That does not prevent the derogation from applying.                  order to ensure, with regard to the three automatic waste
         The scheme does not preclude undertakings in other                   incineration plants located at Mazo and Barlovento on the
         Member States from introducing and selling their                     island of Palma, the application of:
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8.7.2000
     — Article 2 of Directive 89/369/EEC (1), inasmuch as the            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
          three plants are operating without any authorisation           the Court should:
          having been issued for that purpose;
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force and to communi-
     — Article 6 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as, with                   cate to the Commission within the prescribed time-limit
          regard to the said plants, the competent authorities                the national measures necessary in order to transpose
                                                                              Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2)
          — have not taken the periodic measurements in                       and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC (1), the French Republic has
              relation to the parameters prescribed by that article;          failed to comply with its obligations under Article 15 of
                                                                              the said directive;
          — have not given prior authorisation for the sampling
              and measurement procedures or determined the               (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
              location of the measurement points concerned;
          — have not laid down any measurement programme;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     — Article 7 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as the
          three plants are not equipped with auxiliary burners           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
          enabling a minimum combustion temperature of 850°              of Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is
          to be guaranteed, particularly during start-up and shut-       such as to oblige Member States to adopt the measures
          down operations,                                               necessary in order to transpose directives into their national
                                                                         legal order within the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-
     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations           limit fixed in Article 15(1) of the directive at issue in the
     under Directive 89/369/EEC;                                         present case expired on 24 October 1998 but France has not
                                                                         adopted the measures necessary to transpose the provisions of
(2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         the articles referred to above.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of
                                                                             privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998,
Although the mandatory start-up authorisation had not been                   p. 1).
given, the automatic incineration plants located at Mazo and
Barlovento started to operate in January 1992; consequently,
Directive 89/369/EEC must be regarded as applicable to the
present case. In its letter of 3 February 1999 forwarding
information provided by the Consejerı́a de Industria y Comer-
cio (Ministry of Industry and Commerce) of the Government
of the Canaries, the Spanish Government acknowledged the
non-compliance indicated above.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the investigating
                                                                         judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout, by
(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
    of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
                                                                         order of 13 April 2000 in criminal proceedings against
    L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32).                                                                     P. der Weduwe
                                                                                                   (Case C-153/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 192/15)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         European Communities by order of 13 April 2000 by the
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         investigating judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, (First
                                                                         Instance Court), Turnhout which was received at the Court
                          (Case C-151/00)                                Registry on 25 April 2000, in criminal proceedings against
                                                                         P. der Weduwe for a preliminary ruling on the following
                          (2000/C 192/14)                                questions:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Where a credit institution authorised in a Member State in
Court of Justice on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of the               which breaches of banking secrecy are a criminal offence
European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin, of its              operates, under the freedom to provide services, in another
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Member State where there is no analogous banking secrecy,
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its             must Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty) be
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 interpreted: