CELEX: C1999/086/22
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-26/99)

27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/11
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of
     Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive                          animals at the time of slaughter or killing (1), the
     85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of                  Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
     the effects of certain public and private projects on the            under the EC Treaty and that directive.
     environment.
                                                                     2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case-20/1999 (2).
Acording to the German legislative provisions referred to            (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
in 1., it is possible, in the circumstances described therein,       (2) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
to implement projects relating to road construction and
airports which are subject, as projects covered by Annex I
to the directive, to assessment of their effects on the
environment, without any procedure for the official
approval of the plans Ð and thus without any assessment
of their effects on the environment. Under the German
legislation, assessment of environmental effects may be              Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
dispensed with where the public interest is not affected             the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and where, moreover, the rights of third parties are not                                         Luxembourg
affected or where a form of contract has been concluded                                        (Case C-26/99)
with the legal owners of the land with a view to the
implementation of the projects in question. By contrast,                                       (1999/C 86/22)
the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC are not mentioned
in the national legislation; nor does that legislation take
into account the requirements laid down in the directive.            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.                                       Communities on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities, represented by Pieter Jan
                                                                     Kuijper, Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, national civil
                                                                     servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of                     The Commission of the European Communities claims
                             Austria                                 that the Court should:
                         (Case C-25/99)
                         (1999/C 86/21)                              Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                          Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                     adapting to technical progress Council Directive
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                   90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks
on 3 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                      related to exposure to biological agents at work (1), the
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  obligations under the EC Treaty; and
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     Ð Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189(3)
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           and Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty requires Member States
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
to adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives            by the Commission of the European Communities,
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               represented by Mr Richard B. Wainwright, Principal Legal
expiry of the period prescribed for so doing. That period,         Adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 95/30/EC,          seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
expired on 30 November 1996 without the Grand Duchy                exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
of Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary              service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la
provisions.                                                        Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the Commission,
                                                                   Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 155, 6.7.1995, p. 41.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that:
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of
     Spain against the Council of the European Union                   1. by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland, with the
                                                                           description and indication of fineness which they
                        (Case C-27/99)                                     bear in their country of origin, of articles made
                        (1999/C 86/23)                                     from precious metals (gold, silver or platinum)
                                                                           lawfully manufactured and marketed in other
                                                                           Member States but not complying with the Irish
                                                                           provisions concerning standards of fineness, or by
An action against the Council of the European Union was                    obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        with those for the appropriate lower official Irish
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Kingdom of                           standard of fineness;
Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.                               2. by requiring articles made from precious metals
                                                                           (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to bear a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                sponsor's mark indicative of the maker, worker or
                                                                           dealer in such articles, registered by the Company
                                                                           which appoints the Assay Master by which these
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to                       articles are intended to be struck with the
    Council Regulation (EC) No 48/99 (1) of 18 December                    approved hallmark, when these articles already
    1998 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish                bear a sponsor's mark conforming to the
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and                       legislation of the Member State of origin;
    certain conditions under which they may be fished;
                                                                       3. by requiring articles made from precious metals
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                        (gold, silver or platinum) imported from another
                                                                           Member State, and marketed in Ireland, which
                                                                           have been lawfully struck in another Member State
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                       with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                guarantees of independence, and which offers
                                                                           appropriate information to consumers, to bear an
                                                                           approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master
(1) OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 1.                                              which is appointed by the Wardens and
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.                                            Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin;
                                                                       4. by establishing differences between approved
                                                                           hallmarks struck on articles manufactured in
                                                                           Ireland and those hallmarks of the same type
                                                                           struck on articles imported from other Member
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of                     States,
         the European Communities against Ireland
                        (Case C-30/99)
                                                                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation under
                        (1999/C 86/24)                                 Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                       Community;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 February 1999             Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.