CELEX: C2002/191/25
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-107/02: Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

C 191/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.8.2002
1.    The action is dismissed.                                              The question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                            für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by decision of 5 November 2001 is
                                                                            inadmissible.
2.    The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 84, 6.4.2002.
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                                                                            Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                                         of Germany
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                                       (Case C-107/02)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                       (2002/C 191/25)
                         of 21 March 2002
                                                                            An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
in Case C-447/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): DLD
                                                                            ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Trading Company Import-Export, spol. s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                            Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser
                            of Austria (1)
                                                                            to the Commission of the European Communities, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
                                                                            Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                         C 254, Kirchberg.
                          (2002/C 191/24)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
                                                                                  forward to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
                                                                                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                  Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) of 13 May 1996
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                  the health of workers and the general public against the
                                                                                  dangers arising from ionising radiation, in respect of the
                                                                                  clean-up of waste, the construction and clean-up of
                                                                                  uranium-ore extraction sites and the operation of radio-
                                                                                  logical installations, the Federal Republic of Germany has
In Case C-447/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                        failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                            2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court between DLD Trading Company Import-Export,
spol. s.r.o. and Republic of Austria — first, as to whether
Austrian provisions infringe Community law in that they limit
travellers’ duty-free allowance to EUR 75 or EUR 100 when
coming from certain countries as well as certain quantitative               Pleas in law and main arguments
restrictions in regard to the relief from turnover tax and excise
duty on tobacco products and, secondly, as to the conditions
in which a Member State may be liable for damage suffered by                It follows from the binding nature of directives pursuant to
an individual as a result of infringements of Community law                 Article 161, third paragraph, EAEC and under Article 192,
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,                        first paragraph, EAEC that the Member States to whom the
President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen (Rappor-                directive is addressed are required to transpose the provisions
teur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,               of the directive into national law in such a way that, from the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of that
21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                       directive, those provisions take full practical effect.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 191/15
Under Article 55 of the directive, the Member States were               Pleas in law and main arguments
required to comply with that directive by 13 May 2000.
Although, in the meantime, the Federal Republic of Germany
has substantially transposed the directive into national law
by means of the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Ordinance on
protection from radiation) of 20 July 2001, there are still no          Misuse of powers, discrimination, absence of effect on compe-
provisions regulating activities carried out in connection with         tition between undertakings and absence of effect on intra-
the clean-up of left-over waste from earlier activities and             Community trade: Neither the Government of the Rioja in its
works, the closure and clean-up of uranium-ore extraction               complaint nor the European Commission in its contested
facilities and plants, and the construction and operation of            decision have been concerned with distortion of competition
radiological installations facilities and stray radiation equip-        since their action against Ramondı́n was motivated by other
ment under the Röntgenverordnung (Ordinance on protection               interests and the judgment makes an error of assessment of
against damage from ionising radiation).                                the conditions governing State aid. The appellants flatly deny
                                                                        the specific and selective nature of the contested aid claimed
                                                                        by the Commission and found in the judgment at first instance
(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.                                          on the basis that the regional Law in question possesses those
                                                                        characteristics, since it harms those taxable persons to whom
                                                                        it does not apply where they are not located within the relevant
                                                                        territorial jurisdiction of the authority which enacted the
                                                                        legislation but are based within the wider national territory
                                                                        Member State. That argument cannot be accepted, since towns
                                                                        or regions with legislative powers may act only within their
                                                                        own territories and within the limit of their powers, just like
Appeal brought on 17 May 2002 against the judgment                      genuine full Member States, so that State aid proceedings are
delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,                         inappropriate, the matter being one of tax harmonisation,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                 which clearly falls outside the Commission’s powers.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and
T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio His-
tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others
       and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The Administración Foral (Regional Authority) had no dis-
                                                                        cretion either to include or exclude Ramondı́n from the
                        (Case C-186/02 P)                               legislation at issue, provided it fulfilled the relevant conditions.
                         (2002/C 191/26)
                                                                        In the alternative: if the Court should find that the measures at
                                                                        issue were selective, those measures are justified by the nature
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002                and structure of the scheme.
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-92/00 and T-103/00 between Territorio Histórico de Álava
— Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                Ramondı́n was discriminated against when proceedings were
Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2002 by                   brought against it specifically but not against the other
Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, represented by                 undertakings concerned by the same Alava regional legislation,
Javier Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran, abogado, Gran Vı́a 55,               or by similar legislation enacted by the other Basque auth-
Logroño (La Rioja), Spain.                                             orities, the Navarrese authorities by extension and by many
                                                                        other territorial authorities in various Community countries.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
                                                                        No competitor has complained about the grant of alleged State
2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of          aid, nor has it lodged a complaint with any institution or
      6 March 2002 and annul the decision of the European               body either formally or informally against the hypothetical
      Commission of 22 December 1999 in so far as it                    advantages granted, nor have any complaints by third parties
      declares incompatible with the common market the fiscal           been upheld.
      measures laid down in Normas Forales (regional Laws)
      No 22/94 and 24/96 applicable to the appellants, Ramon-
      dı́n SA y Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, and requires the Spanish
      State to recover them, and order the Commission to pay
      the costs of the proceedings.