CELEX: C1997/271/20
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 July 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Coal Products Ltd (Case C-274/97)

C 271 / 12            I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6 . 9 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            a loan agreement with Coal Products Ltd ('the
                                                                       Defendants') according to which the Applicant, acting
1 . declare that, by failing to implement within the                   pursuant to Article 54 of the ECSC Treaty, agreed to lend
    prescribed period all measures necessary to comply                 £10 million to the Defendants with a view to promoting
    with Council Directive 90/605/EEC (') of 8 November                the consumption of coal produced within the Community.
     1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual                      An interest rebate was also granted by the agreement.
    accounts and Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated
    accounts as regards the scope of those Directives, the             The rebate was fixed as the sterling equivalent of ECU
    Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its               1 875 420 . However, this sum was to be adjusted
    obligations under the EC Treaty;                                   according to the quantity of Community coal actually
                                                                       consumed . The interest rebate was calculated on the basis
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                   that the Defendants would consume 350 000 tonnes per
    costs .                                                            annum of ECSC coal over a 5-year period commencing on
                                                                       28 May 1993 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The loan was due to be repaid in one instalment on
The binding nature of directives in accordance with the                28 May 1997. However a management and employee
third paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of              buy-out of Coal Products Ltd took place on 30 January
Article 5 of the EC Treaty means that Member States to                 1995 and the loan was repaid on 3 February 1995 .
which a directive is addressed are obliged to achieve the
objectives therein specified within the prescribed period.
Such period expired on 1 January 1993 , without Germany                The dispute between the parties relates to only one issue :
taking all necessary internal measures to implement the                the starting date of the period for assessing the quantities
directive .                                                            of coal consumed by the Defendants .
(') OJ L 317, 16 . 11 . 1990, p . 60 .
                                                                       The Commission takes the view that the starting date is
                                                                       28 May 1993 . The Defendants seek to show that the loan
                                                                       agreement was varied in accordance with an offer
                                                                       purportedly made in a letter from the Commission dated
                                                                       23 January 1995 . By requesting coal consumption figures
                                                                       for the 'three years immediately preceding the date of
Action brought on 29 July 1997 by the Commission of the                transfer to the MEBO ' ( i.e. 30 January 1995 ), the
      European Communities against Coal Products Ltd                   Commission is said to have offered to bring the starting
                          ( Case C-274/97 )                            date of the assessment back to 28 May 1992 . The
                                                                       Defendants argue that they accepted the Commission's
                            ( 97/C 271 /20                             offer by their letters of 30 January and 20 March 1995 .
                                                                       Accordingly, they argue that the starting date for the
An action against Coal Products Ltd of Mill Lane,                      assessment period set down in the loan agreement was
Wingerworth, Chesterfield, Derbyshire S42 6NG, England                 varied by the mutual consent of the parties.
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 July 1997 by the Commission of the                   The Commission submits that the exchange of letters
European Communities, represented by Messrs Peter                      between the Commission and Coal Products Ltd could
Oliver and Barry Doherty, members of the Legal Service,                only be relied upon as changing the initial contract if ( i )
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                       there were clear words doing so or ( ii ) there was a clear
Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                indication of the parties' intention to do so. The
a member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.               Commission never had any such intention.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The Applicant submits that the Defendants' claim is
                                                                       wholly untenable for the following reasons :
— order the Defendants to pay:
     ( 1 ) the sum of ECU 252 558 ;                                    ( i ) By a mere request for figures, the Commission's letter
                                                                               of 23 January 1995 could not, on any reasonable
     ( 2 ) interest on that sum at 8 % from 3 February 1995,                   construction, be taken as suggesting that the starting
           being the date on which the debt became due;                        date for the assessment period set out in the loan
                                                                               agreement be amended;
     ( 3 ) the costs of the present proceedings.
                                                                        ( ii ) Even on the extreme hypothesis that the loan
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            agreement could theoretically have been amended by
                                                                               such a request for information, in the instant case the
On 21 May 1992 the European Coal and Steel Community,                          period referred to by the Commission was plainly the
represented by the Commission ('the Applicant'), concluded                     result of a mistake on its part;
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97               lEN ]                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 271 /13
( iii ) The starting date of 28 May 1992 for which the                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
         Defendants contend is neither that laid down in the             van Beroep by order of that court of 10 July 1997 in the
         loan agreement nor that purportedly suggested by the            case of Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. ( 1 ) C.J.
         Commission in its letter of 23 January 1995 . The                                  Voeten and ( 2 ) J. Beckers
         notion that the assessment period commenced on                                           (Case C-279/97)
         28 May 1992 thus has no basis in law.
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 271 /22 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by the Centrale Raad van Beroep
                                                                         ( Court of last instance in social security matters) by order
Action brought on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the                  of that court of 10 July 1997 in the case of Landelijk
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                   Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen v. ( 1 ) C.J. Voeten and (2 ) J.
                            ( Case C-277/97)                             Beckers on the following questions:
                              ( 97/C 271/21 )                            1 . Does Article 51 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 547/72 ( ] )
                                                                              preclude the competent institution from carrying out
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                          in the country of the competent institution a medical
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                       examination on a person in receipt of benefit for
on 30 July 1997 by the Commission of the European                             incapacity for work as part of checking the employee's
Communities, represented by Lena Strom and Gotz zur                           degree of incapacity in the absence of a prior medical
Hausen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                      examination carried out by the institution of the place
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                          of stay or residence, where the employee is a frontier
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     worker and, as a result, it can be taken that the
                                                                              distance between his place of residence and the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   competent institution is not necessarily greater than
                                                                              the distance between his place of residence and the
 1 . declare that, by failing to implement within the                         institution of the place of residence ?
        prescribed period all measures necessary to comply
                                                                         2.   In the case of determination for the first time of
        with Council Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February
        1992 on the supervision and control of shipments of                   entitlement to benefit, does Article 40 of Regulation
        radioactive waste between Member States and into                      ( EEC ) No 574/72 preclude the competent institution
        and out of the Community ('), the Kingdom of                          from assessing the incapacity for work on the basis of
        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                its own medical examination, without a prior medical
        EAEC Treaty;                                                          examination by the institution of the place of
                                                                              residence ?
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                         3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the negative: does that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           also apply where the competent institution has not
                                                                              requested and hence not taken account of medical
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                      documents and reports and also information from the
in Case C-220/97 (2 ).                                                        institution of the place of residence, but only apprised
                                                                              itself of medical information from the attending
H OJ L 35 , 12 . 2 . 1992, p . 24 .                                           practitioner in the country where the employee is
( 2 ) OJ C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 15 .                                       undergoing medical treatment ?
                                                                         (') OJ, English Special Edition, 1972 ( I ), p. 160 .