CELEX: C2000/192/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-161/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

8.7.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 192/9
1. As not precluding a legislative provision of the host                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Member State pursuant to which employees of the credit
    institution concerned are required to give evidence as              (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
    witnesses in criminal proceedings concerning services pro-              in order to comply with the obligations laid down in
    vided by them, under the freedom to provide services, in                Article 5(4)(a) and point 2 in Annex III to Council Directive
    the territory of the host Member State in circumstances in              91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
    which employees of credit institutions of the host Member               protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
    State are under a like obligation to give evidence as                   from agricultural sources, the Federal Republic of Germany
    witnesses;                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. As not precluding a legislative provision of the host                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
    Member State pursuant to which employees of the credit
    institution concerned who, when interviewed as suspects,
    choose not to rely on their right to remain silent, may             Pleas in law and main arguments
    as suspects make a statement in criminal proceedings
    concerning services provided by them, under the freedom             Article 5(1) of Directive 91/676/EEC prescribes, in conjunction
    to provide services, in the territory of the host Member            with Annex III, maximum amounts, for each farm or livestock
    State in circumstances in which employees of credit                 unit, of manure to be applied to the land per hectare and per
    institutions established in the host Member State have the          year. Under the German provisions (Paragraphs 2(1) and 4(5)
    same right to make a statement as suspects, where they do           of the Düngeverordnung (Manure Regulation)), regard may be
    not or do not wish to rely on their right to remain silent;         had, within specified parameters, to ‘unavoidable production
                                                                        losses’ in the case of farm manure originating from animals
3. As precluding a legislative provision of the Member State            and to ‘storage losses’ in the case of liquid manure and slurry.
    of origin pursuant to which employees of the credit                 As a result, between 10 % and 20 % of the total quantities of
    institution concerned may be rendered criminally and                nitrogen are regarded as ‘normal’ losses arising from volatisa-
    civilly liable if, in the context of a criminal investigation       tion, and no regard is had to the fact that, to a large extent,
    conducted in a host Member State (see points 1 and 2) (in           those quantities of nitrogen escape into the air and then settle
    this case Belgium), they give evidence concerning services          once again on the ground and on expanses of water, thereby
    provided by them in the territory of the host Member State          contributing to water pollution.
    under the freedom to provide services;
                                                                        The maximum quantities laid down in the directive must apply
4. As precluding a legislative provision of the Member State            uniformly throughout the Community. Following discussions,
    of origin pursuant to which employees of the credit                 the Commission once again referred the question of interpret-
    institution concerned may be rendered criminally and                ation to the committee provided for in Article 9 of the
    civilly liable if, in the context of a criminal investigation       directive, and confirmed in written communications to the
    conducted in a host Member State (see points 1 and 2) (in           Federal Republic of Germany, Austria and Luxembourg that
    this case Belgium), they make a statement as suspects               the quantities specified in point 2 of Annex III to the directive
    concerning services provided by them in the territory of            are to be regarded as quantities of manure ex storage.
    the host Member State (in this case Belgium) under the
    freedom to provide services, whilst at the same time not
    relying or not wishing to rely on the right to remain silent?       (1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   order of that court of 1 March 2000, in the case of Katia
                            of Germany                                     Beckman against Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd
                          (Case C-161/00)                                                         (Case C-164/00)
                          (2000/C 192/16)                                                         (2000/C 192/17)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
ties on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of the European                 Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 1 March
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,             2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 May
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Katia Beckman
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre           against Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd, on the following
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                       questions: