CELEX: C1996/031/26
Language: en
Date: 1996-02-03 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 December 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-381/95)

3 . 2 . 96               EN I             Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 31 / 13
Dobelle , acting as Agents, with an address for service in           against a Member State for national legislation which is
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard Prince                 incompatible with the Treaty .
Henri
                                                                     (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 p . 12 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     18 September 1995 in Case T-548/93 , Ladbroke Racing
     Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities in so             Action brought on 5 December 1995 by the Commission of
     far as that judgment annuls the decision of the                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     Commission contained in the letter of 29 July 1993
                                                                                             ( Case C-380/95 )
     rejecting Ladbroke 's complaint of 29 November
     1989 ,                                                                                      ( 96/C 31 /25 )
— uphold the submissions put forward by the Commission               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
     at first instance .                                             the Court of Justice on 5 December 1995 by the
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities , represented by
                                                                     Maria Kontou Durande of its Legal Service, with an address
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gomez de la
                                                                     Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner
The French Government considers that the Court of First              Centre, Kirchberg.
Instance erred in law in a number of respects .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
In the first place , and principally, the French Government
considers that the Court's reasoning fails to take account of        1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
the case-law on the conduct of undertakings in the context                period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
of national legislation which leaves no room for autonomy                 necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /414/EEC
in such conduct .                                                         of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
                                                                          protection products on the market, the Hellenic
Where such conduct is required by statute, that is to say,                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
when there is no scope for autonomy as regards conduct                    Treaty and that Directive;
which may be the subject of a complaint, the application of
Articles 85 and 86 to the undertakings responsible must be           2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
excluded as long as the relevant legislation remains in
force .                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The French Government considers that when a complaint                Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 169 of the
based on Articles 85 , 86 and 90 of the Treaty and                   Treaty, the Commission requests the Court to declare that,
concerning both the conduct of undertakings and national              by failing to take the necessary steps within the prescribed
measures relevant thereto has been brought before the                period ( which expired on 25 July 1993 ) to transpose into
Commission, it is bound to ascertain whether the national             Greek law Council Directive 91 /414/EEC of 15 July 1991
measures leave some degree of autonomy to the                        concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
undertakings . If they do not, the Commission must reject             market ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
that part of the complaint which is based on Articles 85 and          obligations under the Treaty and the Directive .
 86 having to rule on the part of the complaint which
concerns the compatibility of the national measures with the          (') OJ No L 230 , 19 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .
Treaty . The Court of First Instance erred in law in its
reasoning, therefore, in deciding that the Commission
 should have completed its examination of the compatibility
 of the French legislation with the Treaty before rejecting the
 part of Ladbroke's complaint concerning Articles 85 and 86
 of the Treaty .                                                      Action brought on 6 December 1995 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                                       Spain
 In the second place , the judgment appealed against takes no
 account of the consistent case-law to the effect that natural                                ( Case C-381 /95 )
 or legal persons who have sought confirmation from the                                            ( 96/C 31 /26 )
 Commission, pursuant to Article 3 ( 2)b of Regulation
 17/62 , that a breach of those articles has occurred are not         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
 entitled to demand that a decision be made as to whether or          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 not the alleged breach exists .                                      6 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities , represented by Miguel Diaz-Llanos La
 Lastly, the judgment has the effect of negating the                  Roche, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 Commission's discretion in deciding whether to take action           office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 / 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    graphics     cards         for   automatic data-processing
                                                                               machines ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or              3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 92/109/EEC ( 1 ), of 14 December                       Under which other customs tariff heading should
                                                                               products such as 'vista boards' ( 1 .) be classified ?
      1992 on the manufacture and the placing on the market
      of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of
      narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the provisions of that Directive and Article 5 of
      the EC Treaty;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 1 December 1995
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        in the case of Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical
                                                                                                            Limited
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                  Case C-383 /95 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                             ( 96/C 31 /28 )
in Case C-360/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
on 1 July 1993 .                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(') OJ No L 370, 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                               Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
( 2 ) OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.                                1 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                         on 7 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical Limited on the
                                                                         following questions :
                                                                         ( a ) Where, in the performance of an employment contract,
                                                                                an employee carries out his work in more than one
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     country, what are the criteria according to which he
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 November                            should be regarded as habitually carrying out his work
1995 in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs                          in one of those countries, within the meaning of
                  GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen                                 Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention ?
                           ( Case C-382/95 )
                              ( 96/C 31 /27 )                            ( b ) Is the fact that he spends most of his working time in
                                                                                one of those countries, or the fact that he spends more
                                                                                of his working time in another country or countries,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          decisive or significant in that regard ?
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 November 1995 , which was                   (c ) Is the fact that the employee resides or maintains in one
received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1995 , for a                       of those countries an office from which he prepares or
preliminary ruling in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik                      administers his work outside that country, and to
Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen on the                                  which he returns after every trip which he makes in
following questions:                                                            connection with his work, of significance in that
                                                                                regard ?
1 . Must Note 5 ( B ) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
      Tariff ( combined nomenclature 1988 to 1991 ) be
      interpreted as meaning that image processing, which the
      'vista boards' more particularly described in the grounds
      of the order can perform, is to be regarded as a 'specific
      function' within the meaning of that provision, that is to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
      say as a function other than data processing, so that such         des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of
      goods are not classifiable under heading No 8471 ?                 8 November 1995 in the case of Landboden-Agrardienste
                                                                                      GmbH & Co . KG v. Finanzamt Calau
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :                                             ( Case C-3 84/95 )
      Must heading No 8543 ( in this instance : subheading                                              ( 96/C 31 /29 )
      No 8543 80 80 of the combined nomenclature 1991 ,
      subheading        No      8543 80 90    of   the   combined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      nomenclature 1988 to 1990 ) be interpreted as meaning              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des
      that the term '( other) electrical machines . . . having            Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court, Land of Brandenburg)
      individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere           of 8 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
      in this Chapter' covers products such as 'vista boards'             Registry on 8 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
       ( 1 .) even if such boards are by their nature capable of         case of Landboden-Agrardienste GmbH & Co . KG v.
       being used not only for image processing but also as               Finanzamt Calau on the following questions: