CELEX: C2003/112/25
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-111/03: Action brought on 12 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

10.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 112/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Finally, the Kingdom of Belgium wonders whether the regu-
                                                                          lation at issue should not be annulled for infringing the Treaty
                                                                          inasmuch as the regulation is based on the wrong legal basis.
                                                                          The Treaty provides for a specific legal basis for Community
                                                                          action in the field of employment. The enabling regulation
                                                                          enabled the Council to confer on the Commission the power
                                                                          to adopt actions in the field of employment; to that extent,
—     Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98,                  that regulation should also be declared unlawful, since it runs
      hereinafter ‘the enabling regulation’. Commission Regu-             counter to the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty which does
      lation (EC) No 2204/2002, hereinafter ‘the regulation at            not permit any such conferment of powers by way of a
      issue’, does not observe the enabling regulation in that it         Council regulation.
      does not attain any of the objectives relating to trans-
      parency and legal certainty pursued by the enabling
      regulation. First, the regulation at issue is not clear as
      regards the circumstances in which it applies, in view of           (1 ) OJ 2002 L 337, p. 3.
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 1998 L 142, p. 1.
      the parallel existence of guidelines and frameworks which
      the Commission can apply at the same time to aid for
      employment. Secondly, the regulation at issue is not clear
      either as regards the rules it contains. Finally, the lack of
      clarity affects the very measures which should fall within
      the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and in respect
      of which the application of the regulation is necessary.
      Indeed, the regulation at issue gives the impression that it
      must also be applied to measures of general scope, that is
      to say, general measures adopted at regional level, when
      such measures should automatically have been excluded
      from the scope of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                          Action brought on 12 March 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                        Sweden
—     Breach of the principle of subsidiarity, by failing to take
      account of the constitutional organisation prevailing in
      Belgium and by therefore considering every action by a                                        (Case C-111/03)
      regional authority, which is exclusively competent in the
      field of employment, as specific and thus as falling within
      the scope of the regulation at issue.
                                                                                                    (2003/C 112/25)
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: by main-
      taining earlier aid schemes which had previously been
      authorised while introducing a scheme which is altogether
                                                                          An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
      stricter for new aid and allowing to exist side by side two
      schemes which are diametrically different depending on              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      the date on which the aid was implemented, the regu-
                                                                          represented by L. Ström and A. Borders, acting as Agents, with
      lation at issue also entails breach of the principle of non-
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg.
      discrimination, which is a general legal principle which
      must be observed when implementing Community
      administrative policy in general and in matters of compe-
      tition and State aid in particular. By leaving intact
      previously authorised aid schemes, the regulation at issue          The Commission claims that the Court should:
      discriminates between undertakings which will benefit
      from aid granted on the basis of earlier schemes and
      those which will be eligible to receive only lower levels           1.    Declare that by retaining a system of prior notification
      of aid on the basis of the new scheme.                                    and health checks for importers of certain food products
                                                                                of animal origin from other Member States the Kingdom
                                                                                of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
                                                                                Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning
                                                                                veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view
—     Breach of the principle of proportionality, by making it                  to the completion of the internal market ( 1), and
      difficult or impossible for Member States to pursue a
      genuine employment policy because of such lack of
      transparency, clarity and coherence of the legislation.             2.    Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 112/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Grenoble (Commercial Chamber) of 20 February 2003,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 13 March 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Société Financière & Industriel-
                                                                         le du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against
The Swedish provisions on compulsory prior notification
                                                                         Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge,
(announcement by the national food administration (Livsmed-
                                                                         and Others on the following question:
elsverket) of 25 December 1998 — SLV FS 1998:39) are
inconsistent with the purpose of Directive 89/662/EEC in so
far as they do not recognise other checks carried out in other
Member States. It is true that spot checks are allowed under             May the insured beneficiary of a contract of insurance
Directive 89/662/EEC but the possibility of carrying out spot
                                                                         concluded on its behalf between a policyholder (subscribed)
checks cannot be used by a Member State to monitor the                   and an insurer who are domiciled in the same Member State,
effectiveness of the observance by other Member States of                be made subject to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the
another regulatory system. Article 3 of Directive 89/662/EEC
                                                                         courts of that State, when it has not personally approved the
provides not only for official veterinary checks on production           clause, when the damage occurred in another Member State
establishments but also for regular checks to be carried out by
                                                                         and when it has also applied for insurers domiciled in the same
the competent authorities on establishments to ensure that the           State to be joined as parties to proceedings before a court of
products comply with the Community requirements or the                   that State?
requirements of the Member State of destination. Furthermore,
under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/662 goods cannot
circulate freely if they are not marked in a certain manner and
accompanied by the necessary documentation.
The Swedish Government has submitted that the notification
requirement is necessary to ensure observance of the special
salmonella guarantees which apply on importation of certain
animal products into Sweden. In that connection, the Com-
mission points out that Directive 89/662/EEC offers a Member
State ample opportunity to take steps in the event that                  Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of
breaches of Community rules are discovered when samples are               the European Communities against the French Republic
taken. For instance, Article 8 of the Directive lays down the
procedure to be applied if breaches are discovered by the
Member State of destination.                                                                      (Case C-113/03)
( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                                        (2003/C 112/27)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Ch. Giolitto and M. Shotter, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel,
Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003
in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux,
formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and
                              Others
                                                                         —    Declare that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-
                                                                              geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at
                         (Case C-112/03)                                      the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/
                                                                              EC ( 1), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council of
                         (2003/C 112/26)                                      24 September 1998 with regard to operator number
                                                                              portability and carrier pre-selection ( 2), the French Repub-
                                                                              lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel,                    —    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.