CELEX: C2000/247/20
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-229/00: Action brought on 8 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

C 247/16              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
represented by Carmel O’Reilly, of its Legal Service, and                  Action brought on 8 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                   European Communities against the Republic of Finland
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           (Case C-229/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 247/20)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June
      (Article 207 of the highway code) which provides for                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      different and disproportionate treatment for offenders               represented by Ilkka Koskinen and Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal
      according to the place of registration of their vehicles, the        Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations.               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                           Centre, Kirchberg.
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has not adopted the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                                 to comply with Council Directive 89/105/EEC of
                                                                                 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of
                                                                                 measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for
Article 207 of the highway code provides that, where a                           human use and their inclusion in the scope of national
provision of the highway code is infringed while driving a                       health insurance systems(1), and has thus failed in
vehicle registered abroad, the offender must pay — directly to                   particular to comply with Article 6 of that directive by
the booking officer and without being able to appeal to the                      not applying the prescribed procedure to decisions on
Prefect of the area where the offence takes place — a fine equal                 the determination of individual reimbursement categori-
to the minimum fixed for the particular type of offence or pay                   es, and failed to comply with its obligations by not
a security or show a credit document to cover a sum equal to                     publishing in negative decisions a statement of reasons
one half of the maximum of the pecuniary penalty set for the                     based on objective and verifiable criteria sufficient for the
offence. The provision provides for confiscation of the driving                  applicant;
licence if the offender fails to pay the security or to show the
guarantee. Appeal to the Prefect is not expressly provided for.
                                                                           2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
Article 202 of the Code, on the other hand, provides that, for
offences involving a vehicle registered in Italy, the offender is          Pleas in law and main arguments
allowed to pay, no later than 60 days after notification, an
amount equal to the minimum fine set for the offence. The
offender may pay the fine at the police station to which the               The Finnish authorities consider that Finland is entitled to differ
booking officer belongs or by way of bank transfer to a post               in its own national legislation from Community legislation in
office or bank account. Finally, he is entitled to appeal to the           so far as Community legislation requires transparency from
Prefect within 60 days of the notification in respect of the               the authorities of a Member State. The ground stated is that
offence.                                                                   the decisions of the Valtioneuvosto (Government) of 1964 in
                                                                           the Finnish health insurance system come under the principle
                                                                           of proportionality in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty.
                                                                           This claim has no basis. That was also stated in the Com-
The Commission takes the view that the abovementioned                      mission’s reasoned opinion.
legislation constitutes discrimination on grounds of the place
of registration of the vehicle and thus has an effect on the
outcome as a result of discrimination on grounds of national-
ity. The Italian Republic therefore has failed to fulfil its               Since Article 1 of Directive 89/105/EEC requires Member
                                                                           States to ensure that all national measures, whether laid down
obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 12 EC).                                                 by law, regulation or administrative action, to control the
                                                                           prices of medicinal products for human use or to restrict the
                                                                           range of medicinal products covered by their national health
                                                                           insurance systems comply with the requirements of that
                                                                           directive, that means that it is not permitted to adopt in
                                                                           national legislation measures which differ from the provisions
                                                                           of the directive. That concerns in particular the requirement of
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/17
transparency. Finland’s view that a political decision of the           Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Valtioneuvosto entitles it to disregard the transparency require-          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
ment is contrary to the directive.
                                                                                                (Case C-232/00)
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.
                                                                                                (2000/C 247/22)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of
6 April, 17 and 26 May 2000 in the case of Cooperativa                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
LATTEPIU a.r.l. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel
                   mercato agricolo A.I.M.A.
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
                                                                              Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                        (Case C-231/00)                                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary for it
                                                                              to comply fully with Commission Directive 97/38/EC (1)
                        (2000/C 247/21)                                       of 20 June 1997 amending Annex C to Council Directive
                                                                              92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system
                                                                              for the recognition of professional education and training
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC, the Hellenic
European Communities by orders of 6 April, 17 and 26 May                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
2000 by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (Regional                      Treaty and that directive;
Administrative Court), Lazio v Azienda di Stato per gli
interventi nel mercato agricolo A.I.M.A. (State Agricultural            2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Market Intervention Body (AIMA)) which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling on the
following questions:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.   May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
     (EEC) No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         each Member State to which they are addressed.
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                        to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
2.   If not, are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of        or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                 Community.
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not         It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods              measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those          The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     provisions?                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                          (1) OJ L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 31.