CELEX: C1995/333/15
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-325/95)

No C 333/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Saarlandisches           Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Oberlandesgericht by order of that court of 6 October 1995           Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
in the case of David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
Hayes, his wife, in their capacity as a partnership under            1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
English civil law, v. Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation,              necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the
       represented by its liquidator, Klaus D. Wein                  conclusions of the Commission .
                         Case C-323 /95
                                                                     (') OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41 .
                         ( 95/C 333/ 13 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Saarlandisches
Oberlandesgericht ( Saarland Higher Regional Court ) of
6 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of
on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 the European Communities against Ireland
David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes, his wife, in
                                                                                              Case C-325 /95 )
their capacity as a partnership under English civil law, v.
Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation, represented by its                                           ( 95/C 333/ 15 )
liquidator, Klaus D. Wein, on the following question :
                                                                     An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Where British nationals possessing no residence or assets in         Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Germany have brought proceedings before a German civil               by the Commission of the European Communities,
court against a limited liability company established in             represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal
Germany for payment of the purchase price of goods                   Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
supplied, and are required by the competent German court,            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
on application by the defendant, to furnish security for             Centre Wagner.
costs pursuant to paragraph 110 of the German
Zivilprozefiordnung ( Code of Civil Procedure ), does that           The Applicant claims that the Court should :
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality
contrary to the first paragraph of Article 7 of the EEC              1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,
Treaty ?                                                                 regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with
                                                                         — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991
                                                                             concerning the animal health conditions governing
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of                       the placing on the market of aquaculture animals
         the European Communities against Ireland                            and products (');
                       ( Case C-324/95 )                                 — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991
                         ( 95/C 333/ 14 )                                    laying down the health conditions for the
                                                                             production and the placing on the market of live
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                    bivalve molluscs ( 2 );
Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991
represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal                          laying down the health conditions for the
Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in                     production and the placing on the market of fishery
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         products ( 3 );
Centre Wagner .
                                                                         — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                 down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                             fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Council
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       Directive 91 /493/EEC ( 4 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil
    Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November 1990                        its respective obligations under those Directives;
    concerning public health and animal health problems
    affecting the production and placing on the market of            2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .
    rabbit meat and farmed game meat ( 1 ) Ireland has failed
    to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall          down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 12 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/9
necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the               Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of
conclusions of the Commission .                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                ( Case C-327/95 )
(')  OJ  No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                                        ( 95/C 333/ 17 )
(2)  OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(■') OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .
(4)  OJ  No L 187, 7 . 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 1 1 July 1995 in             The applicant claims that the Court should :
the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio
Mauricio Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima
Barros Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis                    1 . declare that, by imposing a minimum price on oil-cake,
                           de Vouzela, Lda.                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           ( Case C-326/95 )                                  under the common organization of the market in
                             ( 95/C 333/ 16 )
                                                                              oils and fats established by Council Regulation
                                                                              No 136/66/EEC ( } ) of 22 September 19 66 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
European Communities by order of the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of 11 July
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       Pleas in law and main arguments:
16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio Mauricio
Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima Barros                     The oil and fats industry is governed by Regulation
Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis de                        No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 and subsequent
Vouzela Lda ., on the following questions :                              amendments . Article 1 lists the products to which it applies
                                                                         ( among them oil-cake and olive-residue oils ), grouping the
                                                                         various categories according to the treatment applied to
1 . Must be BFE be regarded as an ' undertaking' and in                  them by the organization of the market. That treatment
     particular 'a public undertaking', within the meaning of            varies according to the various products and constitutes
     Articles 90 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                          exhaustive and complete regulation of the organization of
                                                                         the agricultural markets in oils and fats, which leaves no
2 . May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its                      room for unilateral and autonomous action by the Member
     competitors be interpreted as being ' State aid ' within the        States .
     meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?
                                                                         The minimum prices for purchase by oil-presses and for sale
3 . Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to the              by oil producers, imposed in respect of oil-cake by Italian
     freedom to provide services within the Community,                   Law No 1527/61 , mainly concern ( wholesale ) marketing of
     within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty of                   a product covered by the common organization of the
     Rome ?                                                              market in oil and fats .
4 . Do Articles 59 , 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of Rome        It follows that the Law is contrary to and incompatible with
     have direct effect and may they be relied upon in the               the provisions governing the aforementioned common
     present proceedings ?                                               organization of the market inasmuch as it constitutes a
                                                                         national intervention measure in a field where Community
5 . Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence over              rules are exhaustive .
     and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                         The arguments put forward by the Italian authorities to
6 . Does the present case concern a question of Community                justify keeping in force the mandatory fixing of the
     law, or is the interpretation thereof sufficiently clear and        minimum price of oil-cake are not, in the view of the
     self-evident such as to obviate the need to make a                  Commission, of such a kind as to bring to an end the
     reference for a preliminary ruling ?                                infringement at issue . Even if it were to be accepted that the
                                                                         imposition of a minimum price could contribute to attaining
                                                                         objectives in themselves worthy of protection, it would not
                                                                         however render lawful the choice of an instrument which