CELEX: C2000/163/17
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-106/00: Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

C 163/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                                     Republic
— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the requisite
                                                                                                 (Case C-105/00)
     measures to establish and implement an effective system
     of strict protection for the sea turtle caretta caretta on
     Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the species                                     (2000/C 163/16)
     during its egg-laying period (end of May to end of August)
     and any activity which might bring about deterioration in,         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     or destruction of, its breeding areas, and consequently not        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
     complying with its obligations pursuant to Article 12(1)(b)        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992          represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
     on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
     obligations under the EC Treaty;                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council
                                                                             Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 (1), the Portu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                             Treaty; and
According to the Commission, full and effective implemen-               2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
tation of Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43 requires the adoption
of specific laws, regulations or administrative measures and
the taking of substantive measures on site to protect the               Pleas in law and main arguments
particular species.
                                                                        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
The Commission established in its reasoned opinion that there           Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
was no specific institutional framework whatever for the                to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
protection of the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, a fact       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
which was not disputed by the Greek authorities in their reply          That period expired on 1 January 1999 without Portugal
of 29 October 1999.                                                     having brought into force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a
Secondly, the Commission referred in its reasoned opinion to                harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
the absence of coordinated measures for the protection of the               length and over (OJ 1998 L 34, p. 1).
sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, above all during the
sensitive period when it lays eggs.
The Hellenic Republic does not deny that it must adopt the
requisite measures to establish an effective system of protection
for the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, in accordance
with Article 12 of Directive 92/43.                                     Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                                     Republic
The Commission thus finds that the Hellenic Republic has
failed to adopt appropriate measures to implement Article 12                                     (Case C-106/00)
of Directive 92/43 fully and effectively.
                                                                                                 (2000/C 163/17)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 163/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                 a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the
     period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council                  Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
     Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Direc-                          visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
     tives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and                                97/59/EC (1) of 7 October 1997 adapting to technical
     90/642/EEC (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil                progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC (2) on the protec-
     its obligations under the Treaty; and                                       tion of workers from risks related to exposure to biological
                                                                                 agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
                                                                                 meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                               Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                 Article 2(1) of that directive;
                                                                           b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                 Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
on 31 December 1998.
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put
                                                                           forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission
                                                                           the time-limit for transposition expired on 31 March 1998
(1) Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Directives
                                                                           without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full
    76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating             for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.
    to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
    respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal
    origin, and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
    vegetables (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33).                                     ( 1) OJ L 282, 15.10.1997, p. 33.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                    ( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official
                                                                                Journal.
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
                                 Austria                                   of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                          Austria
                           (Case C-110/00)
                                                                                                     (Case C-111/00)
                           (2000/C 163/18)                                                           (2000/C 163/19)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens           represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens
Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an                   Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an
exchange with national civil servants, with an address for                 exchange with national civil servants, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.               Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.