CELEX: C2003/226/17
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-320/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

C 226/10                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                          represented by Claudia Schmidt of the Commission's Legal
                                                                            Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
30 June 2002.
                                                                            1.    Rule that the imposition of a ban on the use of a section of
                                                                                  the A 12 Inntal motorway between kilometre 20,359 in
                                                                                  the Kundl local authority area and kilometre 66,780 in the
                                                                                  Ampass local authority area by heavy goods vehicles with a
(1) OJ L 167 of 2.7.1999, p. 33.                                                  total weight exceeding 7,5 tonnes which carry certain
                                                                                  goods is incompatible with the Republic of Austria's obli-
                                                                                  gations under Articles 1 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                  No 881/92 (1), Articles 1 and 6 of Council Regulation
                                                                                  (EEC) No 3118/93 (2) and Articles 28 EC to 30 EC;
Reference for a         preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                  2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
Administratif de       Paris by judgment of that Court of                         proceedings.
3 July 2003 in          the case of Serge Briheche against
Minister for the        Interior, Internal Security and Local
                             Freedoms                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-319/03)
                                                                            On 27 May 2003, the First Minister of the Land of Tyrol imposed,
                          (2003/C 226/16)                                   on the basis of the Austrian Immissionsschutzgesetz — Luft
                                                                            (Immission Control Act — air), a ban on the use by heavy
                                                                            goods vehicles carrying certain goods of a 46 km stretch of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            A 12 Inntal motorway. This absolute ban applies to the vehicles
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                            covered with immediate effect from 1 August 2003 for an inde-
Administratif de Paris (Administrative Court, Paris) of 3 July
                                                                            finite period.
2003, received at the Court Registry on 24 July 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Serge Briheche against Minister
for the Interior, Internal Security and Local Freedoms on the               The Commission takes the view that, in imposing this ban, the
following question:                                                         Republic of Austria has acted in breach of the abovementioned
                                                                            obligations of primary and secondary law.
                                                                            The transit ban or the ‘pressure to use railways’ creates addi-
Does Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (1) preclude                   tional delays and costs for the heavy goods vehicles and under-
France from maintaining in force the provisions of Article 8 of             takings concerned. The ban thus constitutes a manifest obstacle
Law No 75-3 of 3 January 1975, as amended by Law                            to the free movement of goods. The approach chosen by the
No 79-569 of 7 July 1979 and Law No 2001-397 of 9 May                       Republic of Austria in applying the ban only to transit traffic,
2001, concerning widows who have not remarried?                             approximately 80 % of which is effected by foreign hauliers,
                                                                            thus entails preferential treatment of the national/local move-
                                                                            ment of goods or, in other words, indirect discrimination of the
                                                                            transport of goods by foreign carriers. That discrimination
                                                                            cannot be justified on the ground of environmental protection.
(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-           For that reason alone, it must be found that the Republic of
    mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women         Austria has infringed Article 28 EC.
    as regards access to employment, vocational training and promo-
    tion, and working conditions (OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40).
                                                                            The Commission argues alternatively that, even if the measure
                                                                            is not discriminatory, the argument based on protection of the
                                                                            environment cannot be accepted because the Austrian measure
                                                                            does not meet the requirements of the principle of proportion-
                                                                            ality. There are less stringent measures, that is to say, measures
                                                                            which appear equally suitable to achieve the aim sought but
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the                     which present less of an obstacle to the free movement of
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                      goods. Since it cannot be justified on the grounds of environ-
                                                                            mental protection, the measure ultimately infringes Article 28 EC.
                          (Case C-320/03)
                          (2003/C 226/17)                                   It is clear from Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 and Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3118/93 that, in principle, conditions for the free
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                circulation of goods transport other than those laid down in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July                 those regulations are impermissible. There is no exception
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         limiting the scope of that principle. There has thus been a
 ---pagebreak--- 20.9.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/11
breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of                    Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.                                      European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                                      (Case C-326/03)
(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.                                                                              (2003/C 226/19)
                                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-324/03)
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 226/18)                                         Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
                                                                                   the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
An action against the Commission of the European                                   seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners"
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian                                Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,                     any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                                          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                   under that directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
      14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
      far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances        Pleas in law and main arguments
      granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
      19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based                The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      or with which it is connected;                                         expired on 30 June 2002.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.
The applicant claims that the contested act is manifestly
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-                Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of            division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted         the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the            y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-                                            G.M. Imo
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-                                      (Case C-330/03)
ally borne by the final recipient itself.
                                                                                                      (2003/C 226/20)
The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
dictory.                                                                     European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                             Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
                                                                             Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
                                                                             21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
                                                                             other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions: