CELEX: C2001/369/14
Language: en
Date: 2001-12-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-407/01: Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

C 369/8               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.12.2001
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by the Commission                        For the purposes of designating and revising the designation
        of the European Communities against Ireland                        of vulnerable zones, Article 6 of the directive requires Member
                                                                           States to carry out monitoring of nitrate concentrations and to
                                                                           review the eutrophic state of fresh surface waters, estuarial,
                        (Case C-396/01)                                    coastal and marine waters, according to specified timetables.
                                                                           The Commission contends that Ireland has failed in practice
                                                                           to monitor and review correctly in accordance with Article 6.
                        (2001/C 369/13)
                                                                           (1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning
                                                                               the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                               agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                      Communities
—     declare that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Directive 91/676/EEC (1) concerning the protection
      of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from                                            (Case C-407/01)
      agricultural sources by failing, within the time-limits
      provided for in the Directive, to completely identify
                                                                                                     (2001/C 369/14)
      waters pursuant to Article 3(1) in accordance with the
      criteria set out in Annex I and to notify these to the
      Commission, to designate vulnerable zones pursuant to
      Article 3(2) and/or 3(4), to establish action programmes
      in accordance with Article 5, and to correctly and                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      completely carry out monitoring and review of waters in              ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      accordance with Article 6(1)(a), (b) and (c);                        Communities on 15 October 2001 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                           Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J.S. van
                                                                           den Oosterkamp, acting as Agents.
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1476/2001 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  18 July 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001
                                                                                 as regards safeguard measures with regard to imports
                                                                                 from the overseas countries and territories of mixtures of
On the basis of the information available to it, the Commission                  sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating status for the
considers that Ireland has failed to identify waters in accord-                  period 1 July to 1 December 2001;
ance with the criteria of Annex I of the directive. In so far as
Ireland may argue that it has identified waters in accordance              —     Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
with Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Commission would                         ings.
contend that Ireland has failed to notify the Commission of
these waters within the time-frame foreseen by Article 12 of
the directive.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Ireland has not established and applied action programmes
throughout its territory, as it is entitled to do under Article 3(5)       —     Connection with Regulation No 1325/2001, the annul-
of the directive. Therefore, the exemption, given in Article 3(5),               ment of which is the subject-matter of Case C-325/01 (1).
from the obligation to identify specific vulnerable zones does                   A ruling that Regulation No 1325/2001 is void will
not arise. However, Ireland has not designated any vulnerable                    remove any basis for Regulation No 1476/2001;
zones in accordance with Article 3(2) and/or 3(4). It is
currently the only Member State with a complete absence of                 —     Infringement of Article 109(1) of Council Decision
such designations. A corollary of Ireland’s failure to designate                 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries
any vulnerable zones is its failure to establish any action                      and territories with the European Economic Community
programmes in accordance with Article 5 of the directive.                        (‘the OCT Decision’): in so far as the Commission takes
 ---pagebreak--- 22.12.2001                  EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 369/9
     the view — which is challenged by the Netherlands —                 Upon triangular outward processing, is an operator prohibited,
     that not only imports of mixtures of sugar and cocoa                upon a proper interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of the
     with EC/OCT originating status, but also imports of                 Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) (1)
     mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating                from deducting, on release of compensating products for free
     status, have an adverse effect on the sugar sector, it has          circulation, the amount of the import duties which would be
     failed in any way whatever to substantiate this;                    applicable to the temporary export goods in accordance with
                                                                         their correct tariff heading where their tariff heading declared
—    Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: the             on their exportation was different because it was incorrect?
     Commission has failed to ensure that the safeguard
     measures adopted pursuant to the contested regulation
     will cause as little disruption as possible to the functioning
     of the association. The Commission has also failed to               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                             establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
     determine whether those safeguard measures will have                    19.10.1992, p. 1).
     the intended effect. Finally, the safeguard measures which
     have been adopted go further than is necessary: a
     safeguard measure providing simply for a minimum
     import price for ACP/OCT mixtures would have been
     adequate to achieve the desired objective and would have
     been less onerous for the OCT and the undertakings
     concerned;
—    Misuse of powers: Article 109 of the OCT Decision does
     not confer on the Commission any discretionary power
     to correct or supplement the opportunities for ACP/OCT              Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission
     originating status intended by the Council in cases where           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     the use of such an opportunity has consequences which                                               Belgium
     were envisaged or even intended when the OCT Decision
     was adopted;
                                                                                                    (Case C-415/01)
—    Infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-
     imate expectations;
                                                                                                    (2001/C 369/16)
—    Infringement of Article 253 EC: the safeguard measure in
     issue is in no way whatever supported by facts or figures.
(1) OJ C ... of ..., p. ...
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by G.V. Jordana and J. Adda, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
stance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October
2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des
                                Douanes                                  —     Declare that, inasmuch as the Flemish Region and the
                                                                               Walloon Region have failed to transpose Article 4(1) and
                                                                               (2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1),
                             (Case C-411/01)                                   to define special protection areas within their territories
                                                                               which are capable of being relied upon as against third
                                                                               parties and to take the measures necessary to ensure that
                             (2001/C 369/15)                                   the classification of a site as a special protection area
                                                                               automatically and simultaneously entails the application
                                                                               of a system of protection and conservation which is in
                                                                               line with Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal d’Instan-                   Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
ce (District Court), Metz, of 8 October 2001, which was                        conservation of wild birds, together with Article 4(4)
received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001, for a                       thereof, as partially amended, in accordance with Article 7
preliminary ruling in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur                          of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), by Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of
Principal des Douanes on the following questions:                              that same directive,