CELEX: C2002/144/41
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-143/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

C 144/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
      whether it may be made by an official in such other third                 —     fails to provide that the conservation measures
      country?                                                                        referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 apply
                                                                                      to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and
(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective                    7 of Directive 92/43/EEC;
    measures against the introduction into the Community of organ-
    isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
    within the Community OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.
                                                                          —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Article 6(3) of the directive provides that any plan or project
                                                                          which, either individually or in combination with other plans
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of                      or projects, has a significant effect on a site of Community
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   importance falls within the directive’s scope. The word ‘any’
                                                                          used by the Community legislator leaves no doubt that it refers
                                                                          to all projects, even if not covered by the directives on the
                                                                          assessment of environmental impact and even if not directly
                          (Case C-143/02)
                                                                          connected with or necessary to the management of the site.
                          (2002/C 144/41)
                                                                          However, Article 5(3) of Presidential Decree 357/97 limits the
                                                                          decree’s scope to a restricted list of projects expressly men-
                                                                          tioned therein so that a whole series of projects of various
                                                                          kinds are excluded even though they are likely to have a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             significant effect on sites of Community importance.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.                                                         Under Article 6 of the Italian decree, which transposes Article 7
                                                                          of the directive, only the obligations arising under Article 4(2)
                                                                          and (3) and Article 5 and not those arising under Article 4(1)
                                                                          of the decree — which transposes Article 6(2) of the directive
                                                                          — apply to special protection areas.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by adopting legislating implementing Direc-           It follows that the Italian legislation at issue imposes no
      tive 92/43/EEC (1) which:                                           obligation on the competent Italian authorities to take steps,
                                                                          in relation to special protection areas, to avoid the deterioration
                                                                          of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the
      —     fails to include within the scope of the laws on the          disturbance of the species for which the areas have been
            assessment of effects on the environment projects             designated.
            other than those listed in the Italian legislation
            implementing directives on environmental impact
            that are nevertheless likely to have a significant
            effect on sites of Community importance,                      Lastly, Decree 357/97 wholly fails to transpose the provisions
                                                                          of Article 5(4) of the directive.
      —     fails to impose upon the competent Italian auth-
            orities any obligation to take appropriate steps in
            respect of special protection areas to avoid the              The implication of this is that, should the Commission, on
            deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats         finding an omission from the national list of a Member State,
            of species or disturbance of the species for which            initiate a bilateral consultation procedure with that Member
            the areas were designated, in so far as such disturb-         State and, failing to resolve the dispute within a period of six
            ance could be significant in relation to the objectives       months, forward to the Council a proposal relating to the
            of the directive,                                             selection of the site in question as a site of Community
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/25
importance, there would be no obligation in Italy to apply the        3.    Does the answer to Question 2 turn on whether the
conservation measures laid down in Article 6(2) of the directive            difference in the rules in the Member State of manufacture
to that site during the consultation period and pending a                   and the Member State of importation results from the
Council decision.                                                           fact that different use has been made of the possibility to
                                                                            lay down rules under Article 12(2)(b) of Directive No 70/
                                                                            524/EEC?
(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970, p. 1.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                      (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
                                                                      court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K.
                                                                      Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                                       for Social Security
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit
Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bun-                                        (Case C-147/02)
      desinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
                                                                                               (2002/C 144/43)
                        (Case C-145/02)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2002/C 144/42)                               (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 27 March 2002,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2002,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster
                                                                      against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social
                                                                      Security, on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In a situation where:
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 31 January 2002,              a)    the earnings-related element of a woman’s Statutory
received at the Court Registry on 18 April 2002, for a                      Maternity Pay (‘SMP’) is calculated by reference to her
preliminary ruling in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  normal weekly earnings for a eight week period ending
against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter             on 15th week before the expected week of confinement
des Bundesinteresses (Representative of the Federal Interest) at            (‘the relevant period’), and
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on the following questions:
                                                                      b)    the employer grants a pay rise, which is not back-dated
                                                                            to the relevant period, at any time after the end of
1.   Are national provisions of the law on feedingstuffs, which             the relevant period used for calculating that woman’s
     prohibit imports of a feedingstuff manufactured lawfully               earnings-related element of SMP and before the end of
     in another Member State on the ground that the level of                her maternity leave:
     vitamin D 3 does not comply with the law of the State of
     importation, to be assessed directly in the light of
     Articles 28 and 30 EC?
                                                                      Question 1
2.   Is Article 19 of Directive 70/524/EEC (1) concerning
     additives to be interpreted as permitting the prohibition        Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty and the judgment in Gillespie
     on imports of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured          [1996] ECR I-475 to be interpreted as meaning that the
     lawfully in another Member State on the ground that it           woman is entitled to have that pay rise taken into consideration
     exceeds the level of vitamin D 3 permitted in the Member         in calculating or re-calculating the earnings-related element of
     State of importation?                                            her SMP?