CELEX: C2002/323/22
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of workers' eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transposition)

C 323/18                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
between Geha Naftiliaki EPE, Total Scope NE, Stavros Geor-
giou, Charalambis Bros OE, Anastasios Charalambis, Nikolaos
Sarlis, Dimitrios Kattidenios, Antonios Charalambis, Vasilios                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Dimitrakopoulos and NPDD Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou,
Elliniko Dimosio, on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying
the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime                                             of 24 October 2002
transport between Member States and between Member States
and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                 in Case C-455/00: Commission of the European Communi-
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Article 9(3) of Directive 90/270/EEC — Protection of
                                                                             workers’ eyes and eyesight — Special corrective appliances
                                                                             appropriate for the work concerned — Incomplete transpo-
                                                                                                             sition)
1.    Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of
      22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to
                                                                                                       (2002/C 323/22)
      provide services to maritime transport between Member States
      and between Member States and third countries precludes the
      application in a Member State of different harbour dues for
      domestic or intra-Community traffic and traffic between a                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
      Member State and a third country if that difference is not
      objectively justified.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    The imposition on passengers of vessels that call at or whose
      final destination is a port in a third country of different harbour
      dues from those imposed on passengers of vessels whose
      destination is domestic or in another Member State, without            In Case C-455/00, Commission of the European Communities
      there being any correlation between that difference and the cost       (agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      of the harbour services enjoyed by those categories of passengers,     by D. Del Gaizo, avvocata dello Stato): Application for a
      amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services            declaration that:
      contrary to Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
                                                                                   workers who use display screen equipment for the
                                                                                   purposes of Article 2(c) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC
3.    Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86 does not permit the                       of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
      imposition, for journeys to ports in third countries, of harbour             requirements for work with display screen equipment
      dues that vary according to criteria relating to the distance of             (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      those ports or their geographical location if the difference in the          Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156,
      dues is not objectively justified by differences in the way                  p. 14);
      passengers are treated on account of their destination or the
      place from which they have come.
                                                                             —     by failing to ensure a supplementary opthalmological
                                                                                   examination in all cases where regular eye and eyesight
                                                                                   tests show that this is necessary; and
                                                                             —     by failing to specify the circumstances in which the
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                         workers concerned are to be provided with special
                                                                                   corrective appliances appropriate for the work concerned,
                                                                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                   under Article 9(1), (2) and (3) of that directive,
                                                                             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
                                                                             President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
                                                                             Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 323/19
and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
on 24 October 2002, in which it:                                            and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
                                                                            which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which
      the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective
      appliances appropriate for the work concerned, the Italian            1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)
      of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the                 2.    Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P
      minimum safety and health requirements for work with display                and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in
      screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning             Case C-25/01 P.
      of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                         (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                    (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                   of 24 October 2002
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        of 7 November 2002                                  the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur
                                                                             de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (1)
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain
       Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (1)                       (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
                                                                            Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality
                                                                            wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on
(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to                        label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation
the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender                                            No 2392/89)
          — Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)
                                                                                                      (2002/C 323/24)
                           (2002/C 323/23)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,                by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton                    the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie                    Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)                    propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     laying down general rules for the description and presentation
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in                          of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98                       by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,                         1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                  composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                        ris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth           on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled: