CELEX: C2003/044/15
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services — Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC — Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State authorities)

C 44/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.2.2003
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to       Community fishery law precludes a national law such as that in issue
      ensure the correct transposition of Articles 11 and 22(1) of           in the main proceedings, which prohibits, during a certain period, the
      Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on                    landing, on a part of the coastline of the Member State concerned, of
      the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative              scallops fished in the territorial waters of another Member State.
      provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of
      animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
      Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations        (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      under that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                      of 16 January 2003
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                             in Case C-388/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                   ties v Italian Republic (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of services —
                        of 16 January 2003                                   Non-discrimination — Articles 12 EC and 49 EC —
                                                                             Admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeologi-
                                                                             cal digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments
in Case C-265/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    — Preferential rates granted by local or decentralised State
the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan): Annie Pansard                                                   authorities)
                             and Others (1)
                                                                                                         (2003/C 44/15)
(Origin of fishery products — Article 28 EC — National
law periodically prohibiting the landing of certain fishery
         products — Competence of the Member States)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2003/C 44/14)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-388/01, Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                            (Agents: M. Patakia and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
                                                                             U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a declaration
                                                                             that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates for admis-
                                                                             sion to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological digs,
                                                                             parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted by
In Case C-265/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                   local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of Italian
EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Dinan, France, for                nationals and persons resident within the territory of those
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Annie               authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are aged
Pansard and Others, en présence du Comité Region pêches                      over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such advantages
maritimes, a party to the main proceedings — on the                          tourists who are nationals of other Member States and non-
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                     residents who fulfil the same objective age requirements, the
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 28 EC — the Court of Justice               Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of                  composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
the Chamber, and C. Gulmann, F. Macken (Rapporteur),                         R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
N. Colneric, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate               (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which
judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it ruled that:                         it:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 44/9
1.    Declares that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates           1.    In the case of transport by more than one driver, Article 8(2) of
      for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation
      digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted               of certain social legislation relating to road transport applies as
      by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of                 a lex specialis that prevails over paragraph 1 of that article.
      Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of                Consequently, those provisions are not to be applied cumulat-
      those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are             ively.
      aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such
      advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member                   2.    The same interpretation applies to Article 8(1) and (2) of the
      States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age                    European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles
      requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                   engaged in International Road Transport (AETR).
      obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC;
                                                                              3.    It is for the national court to determine, having regard to the
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 facts of the main proceedings, whether it is appropriate to apply
                                                                                    the provisions of Regulation No 3820/85 or those of that
                                                                                    agreement.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                                                                              4.    Examination of Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 3820/
                                                                                    85 in the light of the principle of legal certainty has failed to
                                                                                    disclose any matters of such a kind as to affect its validity.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 16 January 2003
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirk-                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                shauptmannschaft Mistelbach (1)
                                                                                                       of 16 January 2003
(Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting                        in Case C-462/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court                                    the Halmstads tingsrätt): Ulf Hammarsten ( 1)
to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal
                               certainty)
                                                                              (Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp
                                                                              sector — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation
                            (2003/C 44/16)                                    prohibiting all cultivation and possession of hemp without
                                                                                                       prior authorisation)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                          (2003/C 44/17)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-439/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                        in the European Court Reports)
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Libor Cipra Vlastimil
Kvasnicka and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach, on the                       In Case C-462/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
interpretation and validity of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council                EC by the Halmstads tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                        in criminal proceedings before it against Ulf Hammarsten on
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road                  the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of
transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                   the Community legislation applicable to the cultivation and
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                           marketing of hemp, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas                        M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which                  Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
it has ruled:                                                                 judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it has ruled: