CELEX: C2000/355/07
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2000 in Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Aid granted to undertakings in the Magefesa group)

C 355/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
2.   National rules concerning the determination of the date on            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
     which a vehicle was first authorised for use on the public            Court) (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the
     highway, such as the Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels        proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
     omtrent de wijze waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de          and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
     openbare weg op het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebe-        J.H. Cooke & Sons — on the interpretation of the first
     wijs van een voertuig wordt bepaald, do not fall within the           paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC)
     scope of Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 88/182.            No 762/94 of 6 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                           application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 with
3.   National rules which provide that the date on which an                regard to the set-side scheme (OJ 1994 L 90, p. 8) — the Court
     imported vehicle was first authorised for use on the public           (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
     highway is to be fixed at the date on which its registration          Chamber, V. Skouris and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges;
     certificate was issued only where the vehicle has not been            P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
     registered for more than two days in another Member State             has given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which it has
     constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative    ruled:
     restriction on imports for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC
     Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).                         The first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 762/94 of 6 April 1994 laying down detailed rules for the
4.   Such national rules may, in spite of their restrictive effects on     application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 with regard
     the free movement of goods, be justified by imperative require-       to the set-aside scheme must be interpreted as meaning that the
     ments such as road safety and/or protection of the environment        expression ‘an area which has been cultivated in the previous year
     if it can be shown that the resulting restriction is necessary to     with a view to a harvest’ covers land previously under grass that has
     ensure road safety and/or protection of the environment and           subsequently been cut and used for silage.
     that the restriction is not disproportionate to those objectives,
     particularly in the sense that no other, less restrictive, measures
                                                                           (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
     are available.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                  of 12 October 2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           in Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                     European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Aid granted to undertakings in the Magefesa
                       of 12 October 2000
                                                                                                          group)
in Case C-372/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                            (2000/C 355/07)
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Divisional Court) (United Kingdom): The
  Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1)                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Common Agricultural Policy — Regulation (EEC)                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
No 1765/92 — Regulation (EC) No 762/94 — Aids linked                                          in the European Court Reports)
to the area down to arable crops and set-side — Meaning of
an ‘area which has been cultivated in the previous year with
                         a view to harvest’)                               In Case C-480/98: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de
                                                                           Lapuerta) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: G. Rozet and R. Vidal Puig) — application for
                          (2000/C 355/06)                                  annulment of Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 Octo-
                                                                           ber 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to companies in the
                                                                           Magefesa group and their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                           President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                           (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
In Case C-72/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of                  on 12 October 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/5
1.    Declares that Commission Decision 1999/509/EC of                     1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      14 October 1998 concerning aid granted by Spain to
      companies in the Magefesa group and their successors is
                                                                           2.    The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to
      annulled in so far as it includes in the amount of aid to be
                                                                                 pay the costs.
      recovered interest falling due after Indosa and Cunosa were
      declared insolvent on aid unlawfully received before that
      declaration;                                                         3.    The French Republic shall bear its own costs.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay, in addition to its own
      costs, three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the
      European Communities.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           Request by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC
                                                                                                          Treaty
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      (Opinion 1/00)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                     (2000/C 355/09)
                      of 13 September 2000
                                                                           By an application made by the Commission of the European
in Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communi-                      Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and Marie-José
           ties v the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)                       Jonczy, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, received at the Court
                                                                           Registry on 13 October 2000, the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities has been asked to deliver an Opinion
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to give proper notice             pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty.
                 — Inadmissibility of the action)
                          (2000/C 355/08)                                  The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court
                                                                           of Justice to deliver an Opinion on the compatibility with the
                                                                           provisions of the EC Treaty of the draft Agreement establishing
                                                                           a European Common Aviation Area to be concluded between
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Republic of
                                                                           Estonia, the European Community, the Republic of Hungary,
                                                                           Iceland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, Romania, the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Slovak Republic and the Republic of Slovenia, in particular on
                                                                           the question whether
In Case C-341/97: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Vliet), supported by French Republic (Agent:                (i)   draft Article 23(2), which gives the option to Contracting
K. Rispal-Bellanger), Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:                         Parties to decide whether their courts should refer
M.A. Fierstra) — application for a declaration that, by adopting                 questions of interpretation to the Court of Justice, and
on 16 December 1992 the Regulation for the prevention of
the introduction of foreign toxic dinoflagellata, the Kingdom              (ii) draft Article 23(3), which gives to the Joint Committee the
of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    final responsibility for the homogeneous interpretation of
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                       the Agreement,
Articles 28 and 30 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,                   are satisfactory in this respect.
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
subsequently R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 Septem-
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows: