CELEX: C1997/228/14
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-26 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-209/97)

26 . 7. 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 228/7
The Commission further considers that neither the steps                 Action brought on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the
taken by Belgium with regard to the protection of the                   European Communities against the Council of the
North Sea nor the (national and regional ) Belgian rules                                       European Union
constitute programmes for the reduction of pollution                                           ( Case C-209/97)
within the meaning of Article 7 of the directive.
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 228/ 14 )
H OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976, p . 23 .
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 2 June 1997 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and
Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of                      Pieter Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, with an address for
the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                        Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                Republic
                          ( Case C-208/97)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims
                            ( 97/C 228/13 )                             that the Court should :
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   — annul      Council     Regulation    ( EC )   No   515/97  of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the
on 30 May 1997 by the Commission of the European                            administrative authorities of the Member States and
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      cooperation between the latter and the Commission to
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                  ensure the correct application of the law on customs
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                   and agricultural matters ( j ),
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        — maintain in force, pursuant to Article 174 of the EC
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Treaty, Titles V and VI of the abovementioned
                                                                            Regulation,
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
     regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 84/156/EEC ( J ) of                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
     8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
     for mercury discharges by sectors other than the chlor­            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     alkali electrolysis industry, inasmuch as it neither drew
     up or implemented the specific programmes provided
     for in Article 4 thereof, the Portuguese Republic has              — Incorrect legal basis :
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
     paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                          The Regulation at issue could have been based on
     Article 4 of Directive 84/156/EEC,                                     Article 100a of the EC Treaty, so as to exclude
                                                                            reliance on Article 235 thereof. It is submitted that:
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
     inform    the   Commission          of such   measures,   the          — like the previous regulation ( Regulation ( EEC )
     Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations                        No    1468/81 ),    Regulation      ( EC ) No   515/97
     under those provisions,                                                     constitutes a measure for the harmonization of the
                                                                                 national laws of the Member States . That initial
                                                                                 regulation was based on Article 235 of the EC
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                                 Treaty because, at the time of its adoption,
                                                                                 Article 100a of the EC Treaty, which was
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                             introduced by the Single European Act, was not
                                                                                 yet in existence . Indeed, the last recital in the
 Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                      preamble shows that, according to the Council,
 a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,                  Article 235 is relied on only as regards the
 upon each Member State to which it is addressed. In the                         establishment of the new ' CIS' database ( Customs
 present case, the Directive was fully applicable as from                        Information System — see Articles 23 to 41 of the
 13 March 1986 and the specific programmes provided for                          Regulation in issue ).
 in Article 4 thereof applied as from 1 January 1989 .
 Despite the prescribed periods having expired, the                              However, the CIS cannot be regarded as an
 Portuguese Republic did not draw up or apply the                                autonomous Community entity. The Member
 abovementioned specific programmes or, in any event, did                        States are, as such, ' CIS partners', as is the
 not inform the Commission thereof.                                              Commission, which does not play a central role in
                                                                                 the CIS but performs a coordinating function .
 (') OJ No L 74 , 17. 3 . 1984, p . 49 .
                                                                                 The Commission considers, in the alternative, that
                                                                                 even if it was necessary, in view of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 228/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 7 . 97
        establishment of the CIS, to rely on Article 235              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial­
         (quod non), nevertheless, the legal basis of the             gericht Niedersachsen by order of that court of 22 May
        provisions relating to mutual assistance on request           1997 in the case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt
         and spontaneous assistance should have been                       fur Arbeit, joined party: Federal Republic of Germany
        Article 100a . In Case C-300/89, the Court of                                           ( Case C-211/97)
        Justice held that an act may not have a dual legal
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 228/ 16 )
         basis where one of those bases corresponds to the
        cooperation procedure ( Article 189b of the EC
        Treaty) and the other requires unanimity, inasmuch            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         as that would undermine the very purpose of the              European Communities by an order of the Landessozial­
        cooperation procedure, thereby divesting it of its            gericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour Court, Lower
         substance,                                                   Saxony ) of 22 May 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 4 June 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
     — the Regulation lays down the organizational
                                                                      case of Paula Gomez-Rivero v. Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit,
        measures needed for the requisite cooperation
         between them and the Commission, with a view to
                                                                      joined party: Federal Republic of Germany, on the
                                                                      following questions:
         ensuring the functioning of the internal market,
     — no other specific legal basis exists in the Treaty;            ( a ) Does the option by a person employed by a consular
        this would appear to be confirmed by the fact that                   post under the first sentence of Article 16 ( 2 ) of
         the Council has had recourse to Article 235                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 H to be subject to the
         thereof.                                                            legislation of the sending Member State of which he is
                                                                             a national also have effect for his spouse, not
(') OJ No L 82, 22 . 3 . 1997, p . 1 .                                       employed by the consular service, who is also a
                                                                             national of the sending Member State,
                                                                             or
                                                                             is the legislation of the sending Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge­
richt Köln by order of that court of 6 May 1997 in the                       applicable to the spouse only if she herself also opts to
                                                                             be subject to it ?
case of Haydar Akman against the Oberkreisdirektor des
Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises, Joined party: Vertreter des
    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln              ( b ) If the option by the national who is in the consular
                                                                             service also has effect for his spouse, does the
                         ( Case C-210/97 )
                                                                             effectiveness of the option to be subject to the
                           ( 97/C 228/15 )                                   legislation of the sending Member State presuppose
                                                                             the consent or other cooperation of the spouse who is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       also affected thereby ?
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge­
richt Koln (Administrative Court, Cologne ) of 6 May                  (') OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 1997, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Haydar Akman against
the Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen-Kreises
( Chief Administrative Officer of the administrative district
Rheinisch-Bergischer-Kreis ), Joined party: Vertreter des             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret by
offentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Koln                  order of 3 June 1997 in the case of Centros Limited v.
( Representative of the Public Interest before the                                       Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen
Administrative Court, Cologne ), on the following
question:                                                                                       ( Case C-212/97)
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 228/ 17 )
For a child of a Turkish worker to have the right to
extension of his residence permit, which, according to the
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-355/93 Eroglu
                                                                      European Communities by order of 3 June 1997 from the
v. Land Baden-Wiirttemberg ('), arises from the second
                                                                      Hojesteret ( Danish Supreme Court), which was received at
paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                      the Court Registry on 5 June 1997, for a preliminary
EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
the Association, must the employed parent still be resident           ruling in the case of Centros Limited v. Erhvervs- og
                                                                      Selskabsstyrelsen ( Trade and Companies Board) on the
in Germany, or even still be in an employment
                                                                      following question:
relationship, at the time when the child has completed his
course of vocational training, or is that provision
sufficiently complied with if the Turkish parent was legally          Is it compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty, in
employed at an earlier time for at least three years ?                conjunction with Articles 58 and 56 thereof, to refuse
                                                                      registration of a subsidiary of a company which has its
O [ 1994] ECR 1-5113 .                                                registered office in another Member State and has been
                                                                      lawfully founded with company capital of £ 100
                                                                       ( approximately Dkr 1 000 ) and established under the