CELEX: C2001/173/31
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 13 March 2001 in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the free movement of goods)

C 173/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.     Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
       the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the
       comply with European Parliament and Council Directive                      obligations laid down in Article 5(4) and (6), and
       97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives                            Article 10(1), in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1,
       92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the                          point 3, and Annex V 4(e), to Council Directive 91/676/EEC
       coordination of procedures for the award of public service                 of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
       contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts              against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources,
       respectively, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-           the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       gations under that directive;                                              obligations under that directive;
2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                         2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                    of 13 March 2001
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                            in Case C-379/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landgericht Kiel, Germany): PreussenElektra AG v
                           of 8 March 2001                                                           Schleswag AG (1)
in Case C-266/00: Commission of the European Communi-                       (Electricity — Renewable sources of energy — National
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                           legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to pur-
                                                                            chase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the
                                                                            resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      network operators — State aid — Compatibility with the
                        Directive 91/676/EEC)                                                    free movement of goods)
                            (2001/C 173/30)                                                           (2001/C 173/31)
                      (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
(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-266/00: Commission of the European Communities                    In Case C-379/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(Agents: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:                     the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Kiel,
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing              Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            before that court between PreussenElektra AG and Schleswag
necessary to comply with Article 5(4) and (6) and Article 10(1),            AG in the presence of Windpark Reussenköge III GmbH and
in conjunction with Annex II A, Annex III 1, point 3, and                   Land Schleswig-Holstein — on the interpretation of Article 30
Annex V 4(e) to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December                 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC),
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution                  Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375,                EC) and Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC),
p. 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its               — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),               C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                          Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-             and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it:                                      has given a judgment on 13 March 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 173/19
1.    Statutory provisions of a Member State which, first, require          and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity       Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
      produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources        EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
      at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that         (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
      type of electricity, and, second, distribute the financial burden     J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
      resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators       has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
      do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1)       ruled:
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).
                                                                            Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
2.    In the current state of Community law concerning the electricity      and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
      market, such provisions are not incompatible with Article 30          a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another
      of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).               Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State
                                                                            to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national
                                                                            rules of that State. The application of such rules might, however,
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 prove to be disproportionate where the workers involved are employees
                                                                            of an undertaking established in a frontier region who are required to
                                                                            carry out, on a part-time basis and for brief periods, a part of their
                                                                            work in the territory of one, or even several, Member States other
                                                                            than that in which the undertaking is established. It is consequently
                                                                            for the competent authorities of the host Member State to establish
                                                                            whether, and if so to what extent, application of national rules
                                                                            imposing a minimum wage on such an undertaking is necessary and
                                                                            proportionate in order to ensure the protection of the workers
                                                                            concerned.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 15 March 2001
in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Correctionnel d’Arlon, Belgium): André
    Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (1)
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of                                                (Fifth Chamber)
workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC
                 — Guaranteed minimum wage)
                                                                                                     of 15 March 2001
                           (2001/C 173/32)
                                                                            in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                 ties v French Republic (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95
                                                                            of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
                                                                                                   Tax on motor vehicles)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                                      (2001/C 173/33)
In Case C-165/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal                                            (Language of the case: French)
Correctionnel d’Arlon (Criminal Court, Arlon), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against André Mazzoleni, and Inter Surveillance                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable, third parties: Éric                             in the European Court Reports)
Guillaume and Others — on the interpretation of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the                   In Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities
framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)                 (Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic