CELEX: C2000/163/10
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-52/00: Action brought on 17 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

C 163/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.6.2000
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                           1. declare that
                         of 30 March 2000
                                                                               — by including, in Article 3 of Law No 98-389 of
in Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki v Commission of                           19.5.1998 (1), damage of less than ECU 500;
                 the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Notice of competition — Refusal of                       — by considering, in Article 8 of that law, that the
admission to competition — Manifestly inadmissible and                              distributor of a defective product is liable in all cases
                         unfounded appeal)                                          and on the same basis as the manufacturer;
                          (2000/C 163/09)
                                                                               — by providing, in the second paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                                    that law, that the producer must prove that he took
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                  appropriate measures to prevent the consequences of
                                                                                    a defective product in order to rely on the defences
                                                                                    provided for by Article 7(d) and (e) of the Directive;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Articles 9, 3(3) and 7 of Directive 85/374/EEC (2).
In Case C-435/98 P: Sari Kristiina Jouhki, nurse, residing at
Pyhäjärvi (Finland), represented by H. Ojala, of the Oulu Bar
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance               2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 16 Sep-
tember 1998 in Case T-215/97 Jouhki v Commission [1998]
ECR-SC I-A-503 and II-1513, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Paasi-                  Pleas in law and main arguments
virta and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court (Second Cham-
ber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, G. Hirsch and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas,                      — Breach of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC: the Directive
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                    gives the Member States no discretion to depart from the
30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                      wording of Article 9 in respect of the threshold. Article 13
                                                                               does not constitute a minimum clause which would allow
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                    a national legislature to provide for strict liability in respect
                                                                               of defective products, which is more stringent than the
2. Ms Jouhki is to pay the costs.                                              provisions of the Directive. That does not prevent France
                                                                               from applying its own laws on the guarantee in respect of
                                                                               hidden defects or on criminal liability for damage not
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                               covered by the Directive, as in the case of damage of less
                                                                               than ECU 500.
                                                                           — Breach of Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374/EEC: under
                                                                               Article 8 of Law No 98-389 the supplier is deemed
                                                                               equivalent to the producer whereas under Article 3(3) of
Action brought on 17 February 2000 by the Commission                           the Directive a supplier is only liable in the alternative,
of the European Communities against the French Republic                        where a producer is unknown. Contrary to the statements
                                                                               of the French Government, bringing an action against a
                           (Case C-52/00)                                      supplier who relies on a producer’s guarantee is not
                                                                               equivalent to a victim’s bringing an action directly against
                                                                               a producer. Article 3(3) of the Directive is intended to
                          (2000/C 163/10)                                      prevent inappropriate or improper actions against a sup-
                                                                               plier who can only be called into question if the consumer
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   has given him an opportunity to inform him of the identity
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February                    of the supplier before any action is brought. Moreover, an
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            action brought directly against a producer generally allows
represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin of its Legal                   a remedy to be obtained, if necessary, within the jurisdic-
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                      tion where the applicant resides if the victim can be
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                   considered to be a consumer within the meaning of
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                             Articles 13 and 14 of the Brussels Convention.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/7
— Breach of Article 7 of Directive 85/374/EEC:                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
     — By making the defence of compliance with mandatory
          regulations (Article 7(d) of the Directive) subject to an      1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
          obligation to monitor, the French law transposing the              European Communities in Joined Cases T-132/96 and
          Directive makes that defence subject to a condition not            T-143/96 Freistaat Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswa-
          laid down by the Directive.                                        gen Sachsen GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (1);
     — Similarly, in providing that a producer may not rely on
          the defence of the state of technical knowledge if, in         2. Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision 96/666/EC of
          the event of a defect which became apparent within a               26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the
          certain time of the product’s being put on the market,             Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz (OJ
          he did not take steps to prevent harmful consequences,             1996 L 308, p. 46);
          the second paragraph of Article 1386-12 of the French
          Civil Code inserts an additional condition in Article
          7(e) of the Directive for which that Directive makes no
          provision.                                                     3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) JORF of 21.5.1998.
(2) Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning        Pleas in law and main arguments
    liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, of 7. 8.1985,
    p. 29).
                                                                         — Defective interpretation of Article 87(2)(c) EC: Contrary to
                                                                             the view expressed in the contested judgment, the term
                                                                             ‘division of Germany’ refers not only to the physical and
                                                                             transport/technical establishment of the frontier, but also
                                                                             to the whole of the economic consequences of the socialist
                                                                             system. The appellants argue that that is readily apparent
                                                                             from the fact that, in 1992 and 1997, when the immediate
                                                                             physical and transport/technical consequences of the bor-
                                                                             der between the two German States (interruption of
                                                                             transport links etc.) were already overcome, the signatory
                                                                             States of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties left Article
                                                                             92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty (old version) unchanged. In the
Appeal brought on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat Sachsen                      applicants’ submission, that decision of the Treaty makers
against the judgment delivered on 15 December 1999 by                        means that Article 87(2)(c) EC is intended to support State
the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the                             promotion of the difficult reconstruction of economically
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                       viable structures in East Germany by means of financial
Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat                         incentives. Any other interpretation would imply that the
Sachsen, Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen                                Treaty makers deliberately maintained in force a provision
GmbH, of the one part, and the Commission of the                             that had become devoid of purpose.
            European Communities of the other part
                           (Case C-57/00 P)                                  In the practice of the Commission, Article 87(2)(c) EC
                                                                             has already been interpreted as a provision designed to
                                                                             overcome the economic consequences of the division of
                           (2000/C 163/11)                                   Germany into different economic zones as part of the
                                                                             postwar settlement, as is apparent from the Commission’s
                                                                             decision of 11 December 1964 concerning aids designed
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December                      to facilitate the integration of the Saarland into the
1999 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the                     economy of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bulletin of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                the European Economic Community No 2-1965, p. 33).
Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 between Freistaat Sachsen,
Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, of the one
part, and the Commission of the European Communities, of                     The Court of First Instance paid no attention at all to the
the other part, was brought before the Court of Justice of the               fact that, in the system of the EC Treaty, the overcoming
European Communities on 23 February 2000 by Freistaat                        of the disadvantages caused by the division of Germany in
Sachsen, represented by Freshfields Deringer, Rechtsanwälte,                 the transport field is the subject-matter of a special
Charlottenstrasse 65, D-10117 Berlin, with an address for                    provision in Title V of the Treaty (Transport), namely the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 398                     division clause of Article 78, which was also left unaltered
Route d’Esch, L-1471 Luxembourg.                                             by the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties.