CELEX: C2004/021/47
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-500/03: Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

24.1.2004               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/25
1.    Is it permissible to resort to other language versions of          The appellant claims that the Court should:
      the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to elucidate
      the meaning of the word ‘charitable’ in Article 13A.1 (g)          —     set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
      and (h), or must the word have the same meaning as in                    Instance of 17 September 2003 (1) and
      domestic law?
                                                                         —     1.    in Case T-309/01,
2.    If article 13A(1)(g) and (h) are to be interpreted as                          annul the Commission Decision of 14 August 2001
      applying to an organisation that is recognised as having                       (REC 4/00) in so far as it requires subsequent
      a social character, are they to be interpreted as applying                     accounting for import duties in the amount of
      to a profitmaking entity such as the Kingscrest Residential                    DEM 218 605,65, and order the Commission to pay
      Care Homes partnership?                                                        the costs of the proceedings;
3.    Are article 13A.1 (g) and (h) of the Directive to be                     2.    in Case T-239/02,
      interpreted as meaning that they confer on Member States
      a discretion to recognise for the purposes of those                            annul the Commission Decision of 5 March 2002
      provisions an organisation which is registered under the                       (REC 4/01) in so far as it requires subsequent
      Care Standards Act 2000 (or the Registered Homes Act                           accounting for import duties in the amount of
      1984 or the Children Act 1989) but which is not a body                         DEM 222 116,06, and order the Commission to pay
      governed by public law and does not have the status of a                       the costs of the proceedings.
      charity under the domestic law of the Member State
      concerned?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member        The appellants contest the judgment of the Court of First
    States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value           Instance on the following grounds:
    added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.77,
    p. 1).
                                                                         —     Breach of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 2913/92 (2). The Court of First Instance incorrectly
                                                                               based its ruling on a finding that the error made by the
                                                                               competent customs authority was detectable by the
                                                                               appellants. In the contested judgment, the Court of First
                                                                               Instance exaggerated the duty of care to be expected of
                                                                               the economic operators concerned. In addition, it failed
                                                                               to appreciate the complexity of the applicable rules.
Appeal brought on 26 November 2003 (fax: 25 November
2003) by Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Com-                        —     Flawed procedure in so far as the Court of First Instance
monfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH                             incorrectly declined to hear the witnesses named by the
against the judgment delivered on 17 September 2003 by                         appellants. Instead, it based its judgment on assumptions
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       detrimental to the appellants.
European Communities in Joined Cases T-309/01 and
T-239/02 between Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte
                                                                         (2) OJ L 302, p. 1.
mbH, and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-499/03 P)
                           (2004/C 21/46)
                                                                         Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
                                                                                                   guese Republic
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 September
2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                                       (Case C-500/03)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-309/01 and
T-239/02 between Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and                                                (2004/C 21/47)
Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH,
and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 26 November 2003 (fax: 25 November 2003) by Peter                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Commonfood Handelsge-                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
sellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, represented by Dr Klaus               26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
Landry and Dr Lothar Harings of Sozietät Graf von Westphalen             Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Bappert & Modest, Große Bleichen 21, D-20354, Hamburg.                   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/26                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by approving Order No 783/98 without                  1.     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      notifying it at the draft stage, the Portuguese Republic has               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive              Directive 2001/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the                         of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
      Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for                        Directive 91/440/EEC (2) on the development of the
      the provision of information in the field of technical                     Community’s railways, Directive 2001/13/EC (3) of the
      standards and regulations, in the version in force at the                  European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
      material time;                                                             2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC (4) on the
                                                                                 licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                            EC (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                                 of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
                                                                                 infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
                                                                                 use of railway infrastructure and safety certification and,
                                                                                 in any event, by not having communicated them to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil
                                                                                 its obligations thereunder; and
Article 2 of the Regulamento da Navegação em Albufeiras                   2.     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
(Waterway Navigation Regulations) (Order No 783/98 of
19 September 1998) contains technical regulations within the
meaning of Community law. It is a regulatory measure adopted
by the Government of the Portuguese Republic which is de jure
mandatory and which lays down the technical characteristics               Pleas in law and main arguments
(dimensions and power) which pleasure craft must observe in
order to be used in Portugal for pleasure navigation in public
waterways in Portugal, the only exception being the waterways
                                                                          The time-limit for transposition of the directives expired on
in the Douro River. The article thus manifestly applies to
                                                                          15 March 2003.
Portugal or, at least, to a major part of it. Accordingly, the
Portuguese Republic ought, pursuant to Article 8(1) of Direc-
tive 98/34/EC, to have forwarded to the Commission the draft
legislative measure which was adopted by the Portuguese                   (1 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1.
Government as Order No 783/98.                                            (2 ) Of 29 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).
                                                                          (3 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 26.
                                                                          (4 ) Of 19 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70).
                                                                          (5 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.
(1) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p. 37.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-                            Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the                           mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Sweden                                                          Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-501/03)                                                          (Case C-503/03)
                            (2004/C 21/48)                                                           (2004/C 21/49)
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 No-
26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European                        vember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
Communities, represented by W. Wils and K. Simonsson,                     ties, represented by Carmel O’Reilly and Luis Escobar Guerrero,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.