CELEX: C1997/108/33
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-72/97)

5 . 4 . 97              fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/ 17
2 . What constitutes a zootechnical ground (Article 2 )?                  Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
3 . What constitutes a pedigree ground (Article 2 )?                                                          Spain
                                                                                                     ( Case C-71/97)
4 . Must Directive 91 /174/EEC be understood as meaning                                                ( 97/C 108/32 )
       that a Member State may, notwithstanding the
       Directive, ban the importation onto an island such as
       that described in Question 1 of Part I and the                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
        existence there of all bees other than bees belonging to          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        the species Apis mellifera mellifera }                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                          Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        If a Member State can do so under certain conditions,             address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        the Court is requested to set out those conditions .              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 85 , 5.4. 1991 , p . 37.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to designate zones considered
                                                                               to be vulnerable and by failing to notify such
                                                                               designations to the Commission, as provided for in
                                                                               Article    3   of    Council       Directive 91 /676/EEC    of
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission                            12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                  Belgium                                      agricultural sources ('), and by failing either to
                            ( Case C-68/ 97 )                                  establish or communicate to the Commission the code
                                                                               or codes of good agricultural practice provided for in
                              ( 97/C 108/31 )                                   Article 4 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,
 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
 Kirchberg.                                                                relied on in Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit expired on
                                                                           19 December 1993 .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
 — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
         administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
         with the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
         14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
         Member States relating to insurance against civil
         liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( 1 ), and      Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
         in particular by failing to transpose into Belgian Law            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
         Article 5 thereof, or, in the alternative, by not                                                     Spain
         notifying the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of                                               ( Case C-72/97)
         Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                           ( 97/C 108/33 )
         EC Treaty and the Directive,
  — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                            Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  relied on in Case C-56197 (2); the time-limit expired on                  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  31 December 1992.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   C ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990, p. 33 .
   (2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                              — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                 or notify the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                                 provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/ 18            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 4 . 97
      91 /689/EEC of     12     December    1991    on hazardous               procedure from being conducted under the Federal
      waste 0 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                 Procurement Law for awards of contracts for services,
      obligations under the EC Treaty,                                         and must such a national court conduct a review
                                                                               procedure in accordance with the fourth part of the
                                                                               Federal Procurement Law ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        3 . ( a ) Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 (with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/
                                                                                    EEC ) to be classified as services coming under
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            Annex IA, category No 2 ( land transport services )
                                                                                    and contracts for such services are thus to be
relied on in Case C-56/97 ( 2); the time-limit expired on
26 June 1995 .                                                                      awarded in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                                    Titles II and IV of the Directive, or are they to be
                                                                                    classified as services coming under Annex IB of
(') OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 20 .                                           Directive 92/50/EEC ( health ) with the result that
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                                          contracts for such services are to be awarded in
                                                                                    accordance with the provisions of Articles 13 and
                                                                                    14, or do those services fall outside the sphere of
                                                                                    application of Directive 92/50/EEC ?
                                                                               ( b) Do the provisions of Articles 1 to 7, points 14 and
Reference        for    a preliminary ruling by the                                 16 , satisfy the preconditions laid down in the Van
Bundesvergabeamt by order of that court of 5 December                               Duyn Judgment on the direct applicability of a
1996 in the case of Walter Togel against                                            Community Directive, with the result that services
            Niederosterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse                               coming under Annex IB of the Directive are to be
                          ( Case C-76/97)
                                                                                    awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or
                                                                                    are the relevant provisions of the Directive for the
                            ( 97/C 108/34 )                                         services mentioned in Annex 1A capable of
                                                                                    fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the
                                                                                    abovementioned case ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                   4 . Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the EEC
 ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 5 December 1996,
                                                                               Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an obligation
received at the Court Registry on 20 February 1997, for a                      on the State to interfere in existing legal situations
preliminary ruling in the case of Walter Togel against                         concluded for an indefinite period or for several years
Niederosterreichische           Gebietskrankenkasse      on    the
                                                                                but which were not entered into in accordance with
 following questions:                                                           the abovementioned Directive ?
  1 . May an individual derive, from Article 1 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )           H OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
       and Article 2 ( 1 ) or other provisions of Council                ( 2 ) OJ No L 209, 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
       Directive 89/665/EEC ( ] ) on the coordination of the
       laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       relating to the application of review procedures to the
       award of public supply and public works contracts, a
       specific right to have review proceedings conducted
       before authorities or courts which comply with the
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary                 ruling from the
       provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of Directive 89/665/EEC,
                                                                         Handelsgericht Wien by order                of that court of
       which right is so sufficiently precise and specific that,         20 December 1996 in the case of Osterreichische Unilever
       in the event of non-transposition of the Directive in                  GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GesmbH
       question by the Member State, an individual may
       successfully assert that legal right against that Member                                      ( Case C-77/97)
       State in legal proceedings ?                                                                    ( 97/C 108/35
  2 . In conducting a review procedure on the basis of an
        individual's right, founded on Article 41 of Directive            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        92/50/EEC (2 ) in conjunction with Directive 89/665/              European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
        EEC, to the conduct of a review procedure, must a                 Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 20 December 1996 ,
        national court, analogous to the Federal Procurement              which was received at the Court Registry on 21 February
        Office, refuse to take cognizance of provisions of                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                           Osterreichische Unilever GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham
        national law such as Section 91 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) BVergG, which
        confer on the Federal Procurement Office powers of                 Markenartikel GesmbH on the following question:
        review only in the case of infringements of the Federal
        Procurement law and regulations adopted thereunder,                Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
        on the ground that those provisions preclude a feview              Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the