CELEX: C2003/135/17
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-133/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini preliminari by order of that Court of 25 February 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi

C 135/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
       Spanish authorities to the Commission, it is clear that               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
       various municipalities in the Baix Ter area have exceeded             Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini
       on several occasions the maximum nitrate parameters                   preliminari by order of that Court of 25 February 2003 in
       laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, in some cases                      the criminal proceedings against Alessandro Nizza and
       reaching extremely elevated concentrations.                                                    Giacomo Pizzi
( 1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975
                                                                                                     (Case C-133/03)
     L 194, p. 39).
( 2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
     Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
( 3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment                                  (2003/C 135/17)
     of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).
( 4) Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/
     EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
     projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).
( 5) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain           European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
     dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
                                                                             Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini preliminari
( 6) Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
     quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1980                (Turin District Court, Chamber of the Investigating Judge) of
     L 229, p. 11).                                                          25 February 2003, received at the Court Registry on 25 March
                                                                             2003, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                             against Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi on the following
                                                                             questions:
                                                                             1.   May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
                                                                                  as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to
                                                                                  establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                            part of commercial companies to publish their balance
Stato, Sezione Quarta by decision and order of that Court                         sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
of 28 January 2003 in the case of Ministry of Health                              inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning                             company information addressed to shareholders or the
                      Lega delle Cooperative                                      public or of any other information concerning their
                                                                                  economic, asset or financial position which they are
                                                                                  required to provide and which concern the company
                           (Case C-132/03)
                                                                                  itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
                           (2003/C 135/16)
                                                                             2.   With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                  to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
                                                                                  provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
                                                                                  Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            and, in particular, the combined provisions of
European Communities by decision and order of the Consiglio                       Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European
di Stato, Sezione Quarta (Council of State, Fourth Chamber) of                    Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First
28 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on 25 March                       Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministry of Health                  Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC ( 3) and
against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning Lega                        Directive 90/605/EEC ( 4), be interpreted as precluding the
delle Cooperative on the following question:                                      legislation of a Member State under which no penalty
                                                                                  may be imposed for breach of the duty to publish true
Must Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 ( 1), as                       and fair company documents and which lays down a
amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 ( 2), apply                    system of penalties which are not responsive to the
also to baby foods for infants and for young children of up to                    criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and deterrent
three years of age, and, more specifically, in relation to such                   effect?
products, must the adventitious contamination by material
derived from genetically modified organisms in a proportion
                                                                             3.   Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
of no more than 1 % be indicated on the labelling?                                provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
                                                                                  the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
                                                                                  the First Directive and Article 2 (2), (3) and (4) of the
( 1) OJ L 159 of 03.06.1998, p. 4.
                                                                                  Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
( 2) OJ L 6 of 11.01.2000, p. 13.
                                                                                  and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                  the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                                                                                  of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/13
      information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of               Article 9(1) of the directive (for which no provision is
      shareholders and third parties’, permits only shareholders                made in the Austrian legal system) — save in cases of
      and creditors to apply for the imposition of penalties, thus              urgency — where appeals against its decisions may be
      depriving third parties generally of effective protection?                lodged with the courts of public law only subject to the
                                                                                following limitations: such appeals have no suspensory
4.    Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the                      effect from the outset and the courts are not barred from
      provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing                 taking a decision on appropriateness and are able merely
      the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of                  to annul the contested decision. Moreover, is one court
      the First Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the                  (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — the Higher Administrative
      Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC                      Court) limited, as regards the findings of the facts, to
      and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding                    an examination of conclusiveness, and the other (the
      the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case                Verfassungsgerichtshof — the Constitutional Court) also
      of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company                    limited to an examination of the infringement of rights
      information, which is intended to protect ‘the interests of               guaranteed by the constitution?
      shareholders and third parties’, lays down rules for the
      prosecution of offences and a system of penalties which             2.    Are the guarantees of judicial protection provided by
      are differentiated, reserving to cases where material                     Articles 8 and 9(1) of the directive referred to in
      damage or loss is caused to shareholders or creditors the                 paragraph 1 to be applied to Turkish nationals who enjoy
      right to submit a complaint and apply for the imposition                  legal status under Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/
      of sanctions and reserving to such cases sanctions which                  80 of the Association Council — set up by the Agreement
      are serious and effective?                                                establishing an Association between the European Econ-
                                                                                omic Community and Turkey — of 19 September 1980
                                                                                on the development of the Association (‘the Association
( 1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41.                               Council decision’)?
( 2) OJ L 222 of 14.08.1978, p. 11.
( 3) OJ L 193 of 18.07.1983, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.                                       (1 ) OJ L 56 of 04.04.1964, p. 850.
                                                                          Action brought on 27 March 2003 by Italian Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                       against Commission of the European Communities
richtshof by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in the
joint appeals lodged by (1) Georg Dörr and by (2) Ibrahim
                                  Ünal                                                             (Case C-138/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 135/19)
                           (Case C-136/03)
                           (2003/C 135/18)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 27 March 2003 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                          represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Ivo Maria Braguglia and Antonio Cingolo, Avvocati dello
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                 Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
hof (Higher Administrative Court [Austria]) of 18 March 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the joint appeals lodged by (1) Georg               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dörr and by (2) Ibrahim Ünal on the following questions:
                                                                          —     annul the memorandum of 20 January 2003 No 100629
1.    Are Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of                   (doc. 19), received on 21 January 2003, by which the
      25 February 1964 (1) on the co-ordination of special                      Commission’s Directorate General Regional Policy —
      measures concerning the movement and residence of                         Regional intervention in France, Greece, Italy, communi-
      foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public                cated its decision to deduct part of the amount requested
      policy, public security or public health (‘the directive’)                by way of assistance in the context of the POP ‘Ricerca,
      to be interpreted as meaning that the administrative                      Sviluppo Tecnologico e Alta Formazione’ (Research,
      authorities may not — notwithstanding the existence of                    Technological development and Higher Education) 2000-
      an internal appeal facility — take a decision ordering                    2006; the memorandum of 3 March 2003 No 102627
      expulsion from the territory without obtaining an opinion                 (doc. 21) quantifying the amount to be deducted; and all
      from a competent authority within the meaning of                          other measures connected therewith and entailed thereby;