CELEX: C2001/150/31
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-131/01: Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 150/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.5.2001
Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of                     French Republic, or implementation deadlines. The ‘local
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    recycling programmes for eliminating the main types of
                                                                         industrial waste’ communicated at the same time are, even
                                                                         taking into account subsequent exchanges of correspondence,
                         (Case C-10/01)                                  very imprecise, contain no schedule or timetable, and do not
                                                                         cover the whole of France.
                        (2001/C 150/30)
                                                                         In relation to the laws and regulations communicated, which
                                                                         relate to the conditions for being granted prior authorisation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             with emission standards, the Commission considers that a
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March                 system of prior authorisation in relation to the discharge
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      of dangerous substances cannot, however indispensable, be
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,          considered to render the programmes referred to in Article 7
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               of the Directive superfluous.
                                                                         As regards the quality objectives for water into which the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              substances in List II are discharged, throughout their corre-
                                                                         spondence the authorities in the French Republic manifested
                                                                         an increasing reluctance to implement such objectives. As for
—     find that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction pro-
                                                                         the measures communicated, the only quality objectives
      grammes including quality objectives for the 99 danger-
                                                                         referred to in the correspondence from the French Government
      ous substances listed in the Annex and failing to com-
                                                                         relate to water-courses, not to inland water, sea water or near-
      municate to the Commission summaries of those pro-
                                                                         shore waters. Furthermore the objectives referred to are too
      grammes and the results of their implementation, con-
                                                                         imprecise to comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the
      trary to Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, (1) the French
                                                                         Directive.
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty;
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution cause
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                            by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
                                                                             environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129 p. 23).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the French Republic has communicated a certain
number of measures supposedly constituting a national pro-
gramme as referred to in Article 7(1) of the Directive, it
                                                                         Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of
challenges, in a manner that becomes more marked as its
                                                                           the European Communities against the Italian Republic
correspondence progresses, the duty to implement reduction
programmes under Article 7 of the Directive including quality
objectives for the substances in List II of the Directive.                                        (Case C-131/01)
Although the French Republic has implemented certain
measures intended to combat pollution by dangerous sub-
stances, those measures do not amount to proper implemen-                                         (2001/C 150/31)
tation of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC as regards the
implementation of programmes to reduce pollution caused by               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the relevant substances in List II including quality objectives          Court of Justice on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the
for water into which those substances are discharged.                    European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin and
                                                                         Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents
As regards the establishment of programmes, in 1991 the
French Republic communicated a ‘national programme’ com-                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
prising a series of uncoordinated measures with no objectives
or overall schedule. The ‘sectoral programmes’ contained                 —     Declare that, by keeping in force rules requiring patent
therein are in fact no more than a description of the legal                    consultants residing in other Member States to be entered
framework applicable (or even just contemplated), resulting                    on the Italian register of patent consultants and to have a
from national legislation relating to facilities classified as being           residence or professional address in Italy in order to
for the protection of the environment, and do not contain any                  provide services involving dealings with the Patent Office,
specific plans or concrete objectives to reduce pollution by the               the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
dangerous substances referred to in List II or for those of the                under Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty regarding the
99 priority substances relevant in the national context for the                freedom to provide services;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 150/17
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra Snc dei
                                                                          Fratelli Rossi, represented by Francandrea Venuto, of the Busto
Pleas and principal arguments                                             Arsizio Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of
                                                                          Mr Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie Adélaïde.
(a)   Article 94 of Royal Decree No 1127 of 29 June 1939
      prevents industrial property consultants properly pursu-            The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
      ing their profession in other Member States but not
      entered on the requisite register in Italy from acting,
                                                                          —     Set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
      occasionally and on a temporary basis, as agents in                       Instance contested in these proceedings:
      dealings with the Patent Office on behalf of clients who
      approach them for that purpose.
                                                                                —     Find and declare that the abovementioned order was
      In the Commissions’s view, that requirement is contrary                         made in breach of Article 111, Chapter II, of the
      to Article 49 of the EC Treaty: although it is true that, in                    Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of
      the absence of harmonisation, Member States are in                              the European Communities;
      principle competent to define the requirements for access
      to the practice of an activity, that does not mean that                   —     In any event reject the objection raised by the
      they are released from the requirement of upholding the                         Commission of the European Communities before
      fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in                               the Court of First Instance of the European Com-
      particular as provided by Article 49.                                           munities that the action is time-barred;
(b) For entry on the register of patent consultants authorised                  —     In any event find and declare that the application
      to practise in Italy, Article 2 of Ministerial Decree 342/95                    originating the proceedings before the Court of First
      imposes the further requirement of having a residence or                        Instance of the European Communities in Case
      a professional office in Italy, except in the case of citizens                  T-124/99 is admissible;
      of States which allow Italian citizens to be entered on the
      corresponding registers without fulfilling that require-            —     Grant in its entirety the form of order sought by the
      ment.                                                                     applicant at first instance:
      It is clear that a consultant intending to practise alone in              —     Find and declare that the EAEC is liable under the
      Italy would find it very difficult to establish a professional                  second paragraph of Article 188 of the EAEC Treaty
      practice in that country. He would feel unable to proceed,                      on the basis of the facts and documents relied on by
      for which reason in this case too that there is clearly an                      the applicant in those proceedings, which are to be
      unjustified obstacle to observance of the principle of                          deemed to be reproduced in their entirety in this
      freedom to provide services.                                                    notice of appeal;
                                                                                —     Consequently, order the EAEC, represented by the
                                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, to pay
                                                                                      to the persons vested with legal representation of
                                                                                      the appellant, Autosalone Ispra Snc dei Fratelli Rossi,
                                                                                      the principal sum of ITL 1 245 000 000 , adjusted
                                                                                      by way of monetary revaluation, with interest
Appeal brought on 23 March 2001 by Autosalone Ispra                                   accruing thereon until due payment, or such other
Snc dei Fratelli Rossi, established in Ispra, against the                             sum as may be held to be fair;
order made on 17 January 2001 by the Second Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         —     The decision given should be enforceable and
ties in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc dei                                include an order that the defendant pay the costs at
Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,                                  both instances;
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities                                          —     By way of preparatory inquiry, grant the preparatory
                                                                                      measures requested by the applicant before the
                         (Case C-136/01 P)                                            Court of First Instance.
                          (2001/C 150/32)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the order made on 17 January 2001 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             The appellant submits that the order made by the Court of
Communities in Case T-124/99 between Autosalone Ispra Snc                 First Instance is vitiated for the following reasons:
dei Fratelli Rossi and European Atomic Energy Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Communities,                —     Failure to hear the views of the Advocate General.