CELEX: C2003/171/22
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-221/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

C 171/16              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
As regards the second proceedings                                               —     as regards the Walloon Region, by failing to adopt
                                                                                      the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
                                                                                      and to take the measures necessary fully to transpose
5.   So long as a national of a Member State does not himself
                                                                                      and implement Articles 3(1) and (2) and 5 of
     invoke the right of residence as the recipient of services
                                                                                      Directive 91/676/EEC;
     vis-à-vis the Member State in whose territory he is
     residing, does Community law as it stands at present
     preclude that Member State from not regarding that
                                                                          —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     person as a national protected by a right of residence
     under Community law?
6.   Is the term ‘recipient of services’ in the context of freedom
     to provide services to be construed as meaning that, even
     where a person stays in another Member State for a long              Pleas in law and main arguments
     period, possibly longer than six months, is arrested there
     for an offence, is unable to give a fixed abode or residence
     and, furthermore, has no money or luggage, residence in
     another Member State itself provides sufficient grounds              Directive 91/676/EEC lays down a progressive procedure
     for having to assume that tourist and other services                 which the Member State are required to follow in order to
     associated with short-term residence are received such as,           reduce and prevent water pollution caused or induced by
     for example, accommodation and the consumption of                    nitrates from agricultural sources. To that end, they are to
     meals?                                                               establish which groundwaters, surface freshwaters and coastal
                                                                          waters in their territory are affected by pollution by nitrates
                                                                          from agricultural sources or which could be so affected
                                                                          (Article 3(1)). Once those waters have been defined, Member
                                                                          State must designate ‘vulnerable zones’ (Article 3(2)). They
                                                                          must then establish a code or codes of good agricultural
                                                                          practice, to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis
                                                                          (Article 4). Finally, Member States are to establish action
                                                                          programmes in respect of all vulnerable zones, which must
                                                                          consist of several measures laid down in the directive
Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission                           (Article 5). The directive provides that Member States are
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        to submit a report to the Commission every four years
                             Belgium                                      (Article 10).
                        (Case C-221/03)
                                                                          According to the Commission, Belgium appears to consider
                                                                          that the transposition and implementation of the directive in
                        (2003/C 171/22)
                                                                          Belgian law come under the competence of the regions.
                                                                          According to the Belgian authorities, the federal authority is
                                                                          competent only to designate the coastal and marine waters
                                                                          referred to in Article 3(1) and in paragraph A(3) of Annex I to
                                                                          the directive. That argument is not relevant in Community
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May                law. It is for the competent authorities of each Member State
                                                                          to ensure the full transposition of the directive. Moreover, as
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          regards the federal authority, the Commission does not have
represented by G. Valero Jordana, acting as Agent, assisted by
M. van der Woode and T. Cellingsworth, lawyers, with an                   knowledge of any measure designating marine or coastal
                                                                          waters. As regards the legislation of the Flemish Region and
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          the Walloon Region relating to transposition of the directive,
                                                                          the Commission notes that:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     the Flemish Region has not adopted any provision which
                                                                                designates waters affected by pollution or which could be
                                                                                so affected, in breach of Article 3(1) of the directive. As
—    declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has not complied
                                                                                for vulnerable zones, it has not taken account of the
     with its obligations under Directive 91/676/EEC (1):
                                                                                procedure and criteria laid down in Article 3 for their
                                                                                designation in its territory. Moreover, the Flemish Code
     —     as regards the Flemish Region, by failing to adopt                   of Good Agricultural Practice does not satisfy the require-
           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                   ments of Article 4 and of Annex II to the directive,
           and to take the measures necessary fully to transpose                nor does the Flemish action programme satisfy the
           and implement Articles 3(1) and (2), 4, 5 and 10 of                  requirements of Article 5 and of Annex III to the directive,
           Directive 91/676/EEC;                                                since it does not apply to all the vulnerable zones
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/17
       designated by the Flemish Region and is incomplete.                   Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
       Finally, the report on the Flemish Region does not                    Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by Emilio Cappelli,
       reproduce all the documents and information required by               Paolo De Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar.
       Article 10 in conjunction with Annex V to the directive.
                                                                             The appellants claim that the Court should:
—      The Walloon Region has infringed Articles 10(2) and 12
       of the directive in that the procedure of defining waters             —     set aside the judgment of Court of First Instance (Second
       and subsequently designating vulnerable zones covers                        Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-61/00 and
       only a part of its territory and was finished belatedly and                 T-62/00.
       the designation of vulnerable zones remains insufficient
       to date. In addition, the competent Walloon authority did
       not take into account the pollution of coastal and marine
       waters when identifying waters affected by pollution and              Pleas in law and main arguments
       designating vulnerable zones, in breach of Article 3 of
       the directive. It also infringed Article 5 of the directive,
                                                                             The appellants allege that the judgment of the Court of First
       since after it designated two vulnerable zones in its
                                                                             Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
       territory the Walloon Region should have established
       action programmes within the prescribed period, whereas
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
       those programmes have not yet been adopted to date.
                                                                                   ciple of force majeure;
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
( 1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning                   ciple of proportionality and of Articles 9(1) and 17(2)(b)
     the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from            of Regulation No 355/77; inadequate reasoning inasmuch
     agricultural sources (OJ L 375 of 21.12.1991, p. 1).                          as it was manifestly illogical and contradictory;
                                                                             —     breach of the rights of the rights of the defence for failure
                                                                                   to fulfil the obligation to carry out an inquiry;
                                                                             —     failure to rule on whether a measure of inquiry was
                                                                                   appropriate.
Appeal brought on 21 May 2003 by Associazione Produt-
tori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana                      Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the judgment deliver-                     the European Communities against the French Republic
ed on 6 March 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                                                   (Case C-225/03)
Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00 Associazione Produttori Oli-
vicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori
                  Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission                                                        (2003/C 171/24)
                          (Case C-222/03 P)                                  An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by L. Ström and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                           (2003/C 171/23)                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             the Court should:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2003                     1.    declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/                             Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of
00 Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and                            the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic
Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Com-                           medical devices ( 1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
mission was brought before the Court of Justice of the                             the Commission of such provisions, the French Republic
European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Associazione                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;