CELEX: C2000/079/20
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-503/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

C 79/10                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
4. The contested judgment is also vitiated by a breach of             Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
    Community law by the Court of First Instance inasmuch             of the European Communities against the French Republic
    as it misapplied the principle of proportionality, misasses-
    sed the Commission’s power of discretionary power and
                                                                                               (Case C-502/99)
    broke with precedent.
                                                                                                (2000/C 79/19)
                                                                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                      Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                      der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                      Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission                  Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                      The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                      the Court should:
                         (Case C-501/99)
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                           time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                          (2000/C 79/18)                                   visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                           97/61/EC of 20 October 1997 amending the Annex to
                                                                           Directive 91/492/EEC laying down the health conditions
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           for the production and placing on the market of live
Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           bivalve molluscs (1), the French Republic has failed to
the European Communities, represented by Christopher Van
                                                                           comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,               — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Kirchberg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed             in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 2 of
    time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative pro-          Directive 97/61/EC expired on 1 July 1998.
    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    95/69/EC laying down the conditions and arrangements
    for approving and registering certain establishments and          (1) OJ L 295 of 29.10.1997, p. 35.
    intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector and            (2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.
    amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC
    and 82/471/EEC’(1), the French Republic has failed to
    comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                    Belgium
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                     (Case C-503/99)
in Case C-495/99 (2); the period prescribed by Article 21 of
Directive 95/69/EC expired on 1 April 1998.
                                                                                                (2000/C 79/20)
(1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 15.                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
(2) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000, p. 16.                                         the Court of Justice on 22 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
                                                                      of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                      in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/11
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       and by failing to lay down precise, objective and permanent
the Court should:                                                            criteria for approval of, or opposition to, the operations
                                                                             referred to above, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
                                                                             comply with its obligations under Articles 43 and 56 EC
                                                                             (formerly Articles 52 and 73b of the EC Treaty);
(1) declare that, by maintaining in force
                                                                        (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    — the provisions of the Royal Decree of 10 June 1994
        vesting in the State a ‘golden share’ in the Société
        Nationale de Transport par Canalisation S.A. (SNTC),            Pleas in law and main arguments
        to which the following special rights attach:
                                                                        National rules laying down general authorisation and veto
                                                                        procedures may create, even where they are applicable without
        (i) advance notice of any transfer, use as security or          distinction, obstacles to the right of establishment and to the
             change in the intended use of the company’s                free movement of capital, inasmuch as they may impede, or
             system of lines and conduits providing extensive           render less attractive, the exercise of the fundamental freedoms
             infrastructures which are used or are capable of           guaranteed by the EC Treaty. Consequently, the Belgian rules
             being used for the domestic conveyance of energy           referred to in the form of order sought cannot be held to
             products, must be given to the Minister responsible,       be compatible with Articles 56 EC and 43 EC (formerly
             who is entitled to oppose such operations if he            Articles 73b and 52 of the EC Treaty) unless they fall within
             considers that they adversely affect the national          the exceptions referred to in Articles 46 and 58 EC or
             interest in the energy field;                              are justified by overriding public-interest considerations and
                                                                        coupled with criteria which are objective and permanent and
                                                                        which have been publicly promulgated, in such a way as to
                                                                        restrict to an absolute minimum the discretion exercisable by
                                                                        the national authorities.
        (ii) the Minister may appoint two representatives of
             the Federal Government to the board of directors
             of the company. Those representatives may pro-
             pose to the Minister the annulment of any decision         Although the supply of natural gas constitutes a matter of
             of the board of directors which they regard as             public interest, and although Distrigaz continues to occupy a
             contrary to the guidelines for the country’s energy        semi-monopolistic position on the Belgian market, and whilst,
             policy, including the Government’s objectives con-         as regards the situation in respect of SNTC, the need to ensure
             cerning the country’s energy supply;                       the existence of infrastructures for the conveyance of energy
                                                                        products could also, in certain circumstances, fall within
                                                                        the ambit of ‘overriding public-interest reasons’, the various
                                                                        restrictions imposed are not the most appropriate means of
                                                                        ensuring supplies in Belgium. Moreover, the Belgian authorities
    — the provisions of the Royal Decree of 16 June 1994                have not explained why, although they have abolished the
        vesting in the State a ‘golden share’ in Distrigaz S.A.,        authorisation procedure regarding the holding of interests in
        to which the following special rights attach:                   the capital of the companies concerned in excess of the
                                                                        relevant ceilings, they have not abolished the State powers
                                                                        relating to the management of those undertakings. Lastly,
                                                                        Directive 98/30/EC provides a Community framework for the
        (i) advance notice of any transfer, use as security or          exercise of State powers with regard to the public-service
             change in the company’s strategic assets must be           obligations imposed on undertakings, with a view to making
             given to the Minister responsible, who is entitled         it possible to apply the tests of necessity and proportionality.
             to oppose such operations if he considers that they
             adversely affect the national interest in the energy
             field;                                                     By the same token, the obligation imposed by Belgian adminis-
                                                                        trative law requiring the Minister to give ‘adequate formal
                                                                        reasons’ for the exercise of special powers and the option
                                                                        given to any party claiming to have suffered damage to bring
        (ii) the Minister may appoint two representatives of            proceedings for suspension and annulment cannot make up
             the Federal Government to the board of directors           for the absence of objective, permanent and clear criteria.
             of the company. Those representatives may pro-
             pose to the Minister the annulment of any decision
             of the board of directors or of the management
             committee which they regard as contrary to the
             guidelines for the country’s energy policy,