CELEX: C2002/247/15
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-305/02: Action brought on 28 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

12.10.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/9
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by the Commission                             —     failed to record infringements which the national
of the European Communities against the French Republic                              authorities could have found to exist and to charge
                                                                                     offenders.
                          (Case C-304/02)                                      The apparent absence of control activities was recorded
                                                                               during frequent inspections over several years and not-
                                                                               withstanding the improvements in methods of control
                          (2002/C 247/14)                                      and the number of inspections which the French auth-
                                                                               orities pointed out in their correspondence with the
                                                                               Commission services. In addition, the Commission never
                                                                               denied that there had been findings of infringements.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   None the less, it determined, and complained to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 August                      French authorities, that the inspections were insufficient
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            in number and lacking in thoroughness and that there
represented by M. van Lier and M. van Rijn, acting as Agents,                  are indications that turning a blind eye to breaches related
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     to certain undersized fish is generally tolerated.
                                                                        —      Penalty
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                              The Commission, referring to its communications of
                                                                               21 August 1996 (6) and 28 February 1997 ( 7), is applying
                                                                               to the basic amount of EUR 500 a factor of 10 (out of a
—     Declare that, by continuing to fail to undertake control
      activities ensuring compliance with the technical                        possible maximum of 20) for the seriousness of the
      measures for the conservation of fishery resources laid                  infringement, taking account in particular of the
                                                                               reduction of complaints in relation to the initial infringe-
      down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 171/83 of 25 Janu-
      ary 1983 ( 1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86                    ment, a factor of 3 (possible maximum: 3) for its duration
      of 7 October 1986 (2), and by thus failing to comply                     and a factor of 2.1 for France’s ability to pay.
      with the obligations laid down in Article 1 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
      lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by        (1 ) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 14.
      vessels of the Member States ( 3) and Article 1 of Council        (2 ) OJ L 288 of 11.10.1986, p. 1.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-                (3 ) OJ L 220 of 29.7.1982, p. 1.
      lishing certain control measures for fishing activities ( 4),     (4 ) OJ L 207 of 29.7.1987, p. 1.
      the French Republic has failed to apply all the measures          (5 ) ECR [1991] I-2748.
      necessary to implement the judgment of 11 June 1991,              (6 ) OJ C 242, p. 6.
                                                                        (7 ) OJ C 63, p. 2.
      Commission v France (C-64/88) ( 5) and has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;
—     Order the French Republic to pay to the Commission
      of the European Communities, into the account ‘own
      resources of the EC’, a penalty of EUR 316 500 per day
      of delay in implementing the necessary measures to
      comply with the judgment in Commission v France cited
      above, starting from the delivery of the present judgment
      and until the implementation of the judgment in Com-
      mission v France, cited above;                                    Action brought on 28 August 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                                  (Case C-305/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2002/C 247/15)
—     Infringement of Community law, Article 228 EC:
      The Commission states that France did not act on the
      judgment of 11 June 1991 in Case C-64/88, in that it              An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 August
      —     failed to ensure compliance with technical conser-          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            vation measures relating to the minimum size of             represented by Lena Ström, acting as agent, with an address
            fish, in particular hake, and                               for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/10                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.10.2002
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)     declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar the laws,              —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of                          Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
       25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legis-                       concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
       lation referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of                  in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive
       Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2), or in any event, by                      67/548/EEC, the French Republic failed to fulfil its
       failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the                    obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       that directive;                                                       —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             The obligations flowing from the third paragraph of
                                                                             Article 249 of the EC Treaty includes that of observing the
                                                                             time-limits laid down in directives. That time-limit expired on
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities              1 April 2002 without France having brought into force the
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures               necessary provisions.
necessary for incorporating the directive into domestic law so
that such process is complete within the time-limit laid down,
irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and to inform
                                                                             (1 ) OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70.
the Commission thereof.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom has thus failed
to fulfil its obligations under the directive as regards Gibraltar.
                                                                             Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of
( 1) OJ L 103, 28.4.2000, p. 70.                                             the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
( 2) of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and                                      Luxembourg
     administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging
     and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1
     [SE SER1 71(I) p. 180).                                                                          (Case C-308/02)
                                                                                                      (2002/C 247/17)
                                                                             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of the                        ties on 29 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
       European Communities against French Republic                          Communities, represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent,
                                                                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-307/02)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2002/C 247/16)                                    —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                   or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                   Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
                                                                                   concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                       in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 August                          548/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                   —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.