CELEX: C1998/327/21
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-331/98)

24.10.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/13
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  Ð declare that, by failing to communicate and to adopt
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             necessary in order to comply with Commission
                                                                      Directive 95/32/EC of 7 July 1995 relating to methods
                                                                      of analysis necessary for checking the composition of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           cosmetic products (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                                                                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
    period, the laws, regulations or administrative
    provisions necessary to comply with European                  Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC (1) of
    20 December 1994 amending for the 14th time
    Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
    the Member States relating to restrictions on the
    marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and         Article 2 of Commission Directive 95/32/EC requires the
    preparations or by failing to inform the Commission           Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations
    thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    obligations under the EC Treaty; and                          that directive by no later than 30 September 1996.
Ð Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                  That deadline has expired but the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                  has not yet taken the requisite internal steps to transpose
                                                                  the directive in issue.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  (1) OJ L 178, 28.7.1995, p. 20.
Under Article 2(1) of European Parliament and Council
Directive 94/60/EC, Member States are to adopt and
publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with the directive no later than one
year after the date of its adoption.
That time-limit expired on 20 December 1994 without the           Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission
Kingdom of Belgium having adopted and published the                      of the European Communities against Ireland
necessary provisions in order to comply therewith.                                         (Case C-331/98)
                                                                                            (98/C 327/21)
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                  An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                  1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                  represented by Richard Wainwright, principal legal
Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the Commission              adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
                            Belgium                               member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                  Wagner, Kirchberg.
                       (Case C-329/98)
                        (98/C 327/20)
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           Ð declare that by not prohibiting Irish sanitary
on 7 September 1998 by the Commission of the European                 authorities from making any direct discharges of List I
Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal                substances to groundwater nor subjecting such
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in              authorities to any system of prior investigation and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                  authorization for direct discharges of List II
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                             substances, contrary, in particular, to Articles 3, 4 and
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/14               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
     5 of Directive 80/68/EEC (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil         in so far as it did not apply Article 90(2) of the EC
     its obligations under the Treaty;                                  Treaty;
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
According to Article 4 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC,
Member States shall prohibit all direct discharge of                The contested decision was adopted following the
substances in List I annexed to the directive and according         judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-49/93
to Article 5 of the directive, Member States shall make             SocieÂteÂ Internationale de Diffusion et d'EÂdition (SIDE) v
subject to prior investigation and authorization all direct         Commission of the European Communities ([1995] ECR
discharge of substances in List II annexed to the directive.        II-2501).
Irish legislation at present does not prohibit direct               According to Article 1 of the contested decision, the aid
discharges by sanitary authorities of substances in List I to       granted to the Centre d'Exportation du Livre FrancËais
groundwater and the general licensing system instituted             (CELF) for handling small orders for French-language
for trade and sewage effluents does not apply to                    books as aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the
discharges from a sewer and trade effluent discharged by a          EC Treaty, but is compatible with the common market
sanitary authority in the course of the performance of its          because it satisfies the conditions to qualify for the benefit
powers and duties other than from a sewer.                          of the derogation provided for by Article 92(3)(d) of that
                                                                    Treaty. It is also clear from that article of the contested
                                                                    decision that, since the French Government failed to notify
(1) Council Directive of 17 December 1979 on the protection of
                                                                    that aid to the Commission before implementing it, the
    groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous
    substances (L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43).                            aid was granted unlawfully.
                                                                    It is clear from the recitals in the preamble to the
                                                                    contested decision that the Commission considered that, in
                                                                    accordance with the case-law (judgment in Case C-387/92
                                                                    Banco Exterior de EspanÄa [1994] ECR 872, paragraph 21),
Action brought on 8 September 1998 by the French                    since the aid was compatible with the common market, it
Republic against the Commission of the European                     was not necessary for it to consider whether the aid could,
                           Communities                              by virtue of Article 90(2) of the Treaty, escape the
                                                                    prohibition laid down in Article 92. Furthermore, it is
                        (Case C-332/98)                             clear from the recitals in the preamble to the decision that,
                                                                    in any event, the Commission considered that the French
                          (98/C 327/22)                             Government had not established that CELF was entrusted
                                                                    with the operation of services of general economic
                                                                    interest, since no reference was made to CELF in any
                                                                    legislative or administrative measure.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 8 September 1998 by the
French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,            The applicant government considers that, by failing to
Deputy Director for International Financial Law and                 consider whether the aid at issue falls within the scope of
Community Law in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                   Article 90(2) of the Treaty, the Commission committed an
and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission in the same              error of law. The case-law cited above applies only to
Ministry, acting as Agents, with an address for service in          existing' aid. In respect of new aid, such as that in the
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8 B Boulevard                     present case, such an examination is necessary since, in
Joseph II.                                                          the absence of notification, that aid could become the
                                                                    subject of recovery.
The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Furthermore, the applicant government considers that the
                                                                    aid at issue does fall within the scope of Article 90(2) of
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European              the Treaty. It is not necessary, in order for that provision
     Communities of 10 June 1998 (C(1998) 728 final) (1)            to apply, for a body to be entrusted by a legislative or