CELEX: C2000/047/02
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 1999 in Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive 76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to transpose)

19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 47/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           in respect of the expenditure of the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                                 European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for 1993,
                                                                                 in so far as it made an adjustment of ITL 778 000 000 for late
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                        payment for intervention purchases of beef and veal;
                                                                             2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                       of 28 October 1999
                                                                             3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay four-fifths of the costs and the
                                                                                 Commission of the European Communities to pay one-fifth.
in Case C-253/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
         (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1993)
                           (2000/C 47/01)
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                                       (Sixth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                              of 11 November 1999
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                         ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
In Case C-253/97: Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza,
assisted by G. De Bellis) v Commission of the European                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive
Communities (Agent: P. Ziotti, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                     76/464/EEC — Aquatic pollution — Failure to transpose)
application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts
                                                                                                        (2000/C 47/02)
presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guid-
ance and Guarantee Fund for 1993 (OJ 1997 L 139, p. 30), in                                      (Language of the case: German)
so far as it concerns the Italian Republic — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President
of the Sixth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rappor-                                    in the European Court Reports)
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 1999,                   In Case C-184/97: Commission of the European Communities
in which it:                                                                 (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                             (Agents: E. Röder and C.-D. Quassowski) — application for a
1. Annuls Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997                     declaration that by not adopting, under Article 7 of Council
    on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States          Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            19.2.2000
certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic                    the proceedings pending before that court between Firma Söhl
environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23),                        & Söhlke and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation
programmes including quality objectives to reduce pollution                 of Articles 49, 204 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC)
by the substances in List II of the annex to that directive, the            No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and Article 212a of
under the EC Treaty, — the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed                   Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation (EC)
of R. Schintgen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for                No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
the President of the Sixth Chamber (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch                  19 December 1996 (OJ 1997, L 17, p. 1) and on the validity
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo,                      and interpretation of Article 859 and the interpretation of
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                Articles 900 and 905 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
trar, has given a judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it:                No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
                                                                            implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
1. Declares that, by not adopting, in accordance with Article 7 of          p. 1), as amended by Article 1(29) of Commission Regulation
     Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution                (EC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 346, p. 1)
     caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the             — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
     aquatic environment of the Community, programmes including             (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber acting for the
     quality objectives to reduce pollution by 99 substances on List 1      President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragne-
     of the annex to the directive, which under the first indent of List    malm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
     II must be treated as List 11 substances, the Federal Republic of      Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;      11 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            1. Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                                      2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation
                                                                                of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                                Community Customs Code contains a validly constituted and
                                                                                exhaustive set of rules on failures, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
                                                                                12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
                                                                                which ‘have no significant effect on the correct operation of the
                                                                                temporary storage or customs procedure in question’.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                  2. (a) The terms used to qualify negligence in the German version
                                                                                     of Article 212a of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by
                                                                                     Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and
                       of 11 November 1999                                           of the Council of 19 December 1996, Article 239 of
                                                                                     Regulation No 2913/92 and Article 859 of Regulation
in Case C-48/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                             No 2454/93 have one and the same meaning. In the
the Finanzgericht Bremen): Firma Söhl & Söhlke v                                     German version those terms must be understood as referring
                     Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)                                         to ‘offensichtliche Fahrlässigkeit’ (obvious negligence).
(Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation
— Exceeding of time-limits for the customs clearance of                         (b) It is not possible to conclude that there was no obvious
non-Community goods in temporary storage — Failure                                   negligence within the meaning of the second indent of
having ‘no significant effect on the correct operation of the                        Article 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where a customs
temporary storage or customs procedure in question’ —                                debt is incurred pursuant to Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation
          Extension of period — ‘Obvious negligence’)                                No 2913/92 as a result of behaviour which constitutes
                                                                                     obvious negligence within the meaning of the second indent
                            (2000/C 47/03)                                           of Article 859 of Regulation No 2454/93.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (c) In order to determine whether there is ‘obvious negligence’
                                                                                     within the meaning of the second indent of Article 239(1)
                                                                                     of Regulation No 2913/92, account must be taken in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                     particular of the complexity of the provisions non-compliance
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                     with which has resulted in the customs debt being incurred
                                                                                     and the professional experience of, and the care taken by, the
In Case C-48/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                         trader. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                            of those criteria, whether there is obvious negligence on the
(Finance Court) Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                         part of the trader.