CELEX: C2000/163/23
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-117/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

10.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 163/13
6. Should the reply to Question 4 be in the negative:                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel
                                                                        de Paris (13th Chamber) in the case of Ministère Public v
    In order to comply with the obligation of cooperation and                                  Claude Laguillaumie
    solidarity incumbent under Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
    Article 10 EC) on national authorities, in particular the                                    (Case C-116/00)
    courts, and with the principle of effectiveness, must
    application of national rules of substantive or procedural
    law curtailing the ability to assert claims which are well                                   (2000/C 163/22)
    founded under Community law, such as in the present
    case a claim founded on State liability, be deferred pending
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    full elucidation of the substance of the claim at Community
                                                                        European Communities by request received at the Court
    law, if necessary following a reference to the Court of
                                                                        Registry on 27 March 2000 from the Cour d’Appel de Paris
    Justice for a preliminary ruling?
                                                                        (13th Chamber) for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Ministère Public (Public Prosecutor) v Claude Laguillaumie.
                                                                        The Cour d’Appel de Paris (13th Chamber) asks the Court of
                                                                        Justice to rule on the compatibility of the decree of 1 April
                                                                        1992 and the ministerial decrees of 12 November 1992 and
                                                                        30 August 1996 authorising Eco Emballage SA and granting
                                                                        it exclusive rights in French territory to the reclamation of all
                                                                        products other than glass and medicines, with the principles
                                                                        laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 81
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                        EC), Article 86 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 82
Münster by order of 23 February 2000 in the case of
                                                                        EC), Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991, Directive
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service S.à.r.l.
                                                                        83/189/EEC (2) of 28 March 1983, Articles 30 and 36 of the
                      v Finanzamt Borken
                                                                        Treaty of Rome (now, after amendment, Articles 28 and 30
                                                                        EC) and Directive 94/62/EC (3) of 20 December 1994.
                         (Case C-115/00)
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
                         (2000/C 163/21)                                    Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
                                                                            procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
                                                                            standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (3) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
European Communities by order of 23 February 2000 by the                    20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
Finanzgericht Münster (Finance Court, Münster), which was                   L 365, p. 10).
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Andreas Hoves Internationaler
Transport-Service S.à.r.l. v Finanzamt Borken on the following
questions:
1. Does Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93
    of 25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) preclude
    national rules which result in motor vehicle tax being
    charged for the use of commercial goods vehicles which
    are registered in another Member State of the European
    Union, for which a cabotage authorisation has been issued
                                                                        Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Commission of
    in that Member State, which carry out cabotage operations
                                                                                 the European Communities against Ireland
    in the Federal Republic of Germany and which have their
    regular base there?
                                                                                                 (Case C-117/00)
2. Does Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of
    25 October 1993 (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), in cases like that                                   (2000/C 163/23)
    mentioned in Question 1, preclude national rules such as
    the second half of the second sentence of Paragraph 1(1)(2)
    of the Kraftfahrzeugsteuergesetz (KraftStG, Law on Motor            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    Vehicle Tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 1(1)(3) of the           Justice of the European Communities on 27 March 2000 by
    KraftStG?                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as
                                                                        agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                   conserve habitat and avoid erosion, and, moreover, it has
                                                                              failed to avoid habitat deterioration negatively affecting
                                                                              wild bird species of Annex 1 of the Birds Directive as well
                                                                              as regularly occurring migratory species present on the
— declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to              Complex, the decline of which is not disputed by the Irish
    comply with Article 3 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) in                      authorities.
    respect of the Red Grouse (Lagopus lagopus), and with
    Article 4(4), first sentence, of Directive 79/409/EEC and
    Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) in respectf of the           (1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex Special Protection Area,                     vation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1).
    Ireland has failed to comply with these Directives and with          (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
    its obligations under the Treaty,                                        of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
                                                                             22.7.1992, p. 7).
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Travail
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          de Mons (Eighth Chamber) by order of that court of
                                                                         20 March 2000 in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
                                                                         National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indé-
                                                                                                       pendants
1) Failure to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient
    diversity and area of habitats for Red Grouse                                                  (Case C- 118/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 163/24)
    Having regard to the identification of Red Grouse as one
    of the 12 most threatened breeding bird species in Ireland,          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the dependancy of Red Grouse on hill-land and bog                    European Communities by an order of the Cour de Travail
    habitat, the dependancy of Red Grouse on heather, which              (Labour Court), Mons (Eighth Chamber) of 20 March 2000,
    is known to be seriously affected by overgrazing, the                which was received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2000,
    recognition of the need for hill-land and bog habitat                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gervais Larsy v Institut
    conservation measures to benefit the Red Grouse, the                 National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
    emergence and persistence of a widespread problem of                 on the following questions:
    sheep overgrazing on hill-land and bog habitat associated
    with Red Grouse since 1981, the ineffectiveness of
                                                                         1. Must Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be
    measures to combat this overgrazing, the evidence of
                                                                              interpreted as being applicable to the situation of a person
    significant decline in the range of the Red Grouse and the
                                                                              covered by social insurance, as a self-employed worker,
    preventive and precautionary principles, the Commission
                                                                              who has instituted legal proceedings against an adminis-
    considers that Ireland has failed to meet its obligations to
                                                                              trative decision of the institution responsible for the social
    safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for
                                                                              security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
    the species in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
                                                                              the EU applying an anti-overlapping rule of European
    79/409/EEC (the Birds Directive):
                                                                              Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles 12 and 46), that
                                                                              decision having been confirmed by the national court
                                                                              hearing the case in that Member State and the judgment
2) Damage to Owenduff-Nephin Beg Complex SPA                                  not having been notified by the parties and therefore
                                                                              remaining subject to appeal, even though a decision given
                                                                              by the CJEC after that judgment, in a similar case,
                                                                              interpreting Articles 12 and 46 of that regulation, held
    Inasmuch as Ireland has allowed a problem of overgrazing                  that a Community anti-overlapping rule should not be
    to occur in the Complex since 1981, it must be considered                 applied in those circumstances in so far as such application
    to have failed to respect Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC             of Article 95a(5) by the national institution responsible
    (the Habitats Directive), and, prior to the coming into force             for the social security of self-employed workers to the
    of that provision, Article 4(4), first sentence, of the Birds             abovementioned insured person, following the judgment
    Directive. To the extent that Ireland relies on State                     of the CJEC, to ensure that the rights of that insured person
    acquisition, the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme                    are reviewed, and Article 95a(5) limit the effects of the
    and related measures to safeguard the Complex, it cannot                  abovementioned CJEC judgment, it being necessary, in
    be considered to have taken all the appropriate measures                  order, in the event of proceedings being brought, to give
    in relation to Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. In                 effect to the said Article 95a(5), for a new application to
    particular, Ireland has not ensured that, over the entire                 be made by the insured with respect to his rights and for a
    area of the Complex, sheep stocking rates are such as to                  new decision to be adopted thereafter?