CELEX: C2003/226/25
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-342/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/13
Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of                      Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Republic of Austria                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-340/03)                                                            (Case C-341/03)
                         (2003/C 226/23)                                                           (2003/C 226/24)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-                2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by J.-C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana, members of              sented by H. Michard, of its Legal Service.
the legal service of the Commission of the European
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          a)   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1.   find that, by failing fully and correctly to implement the                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     following provisions of Council Directive 86/278/EEC of                   Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguard-
     12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and                    ing the supplementary pension rights of employed and
     in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in                  self-employed persons moving within the Community (1),
     agriculture (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its         and in any event by failing to inform the Commission
     obligations under the Treaty:                                             thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
                                                                               tions under that directive;
     a)   the definition contained in Article 2(a) of the
          Directive, in the Bundesland Steiermark (exceptions             b)   order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
          for small sewage treatment plants),
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
     b)    Article 6(b) concerning the information to be regu-
           larly provided to users under Annex II A, in Kärnten,          1.   Under the third paragraph of Article 249 (3) EC, directives
                                                                               are binding, on the Member States as to the result to be
     c)   Article 9 in conjunction with Annexes II A, II B and                 achieved, but leave to the national authorities the choice of
          II C in Vorarlberg and in conjunction with Annex II C                form and methods.
          in Kärnten and in Steiermark, and
                                                                          2.   In this case, Article 10(1) of Council Directive 98/49/EC of
     d)    the requirement to keep a record in accordance with                 29 June 1998 provides that Member States are to bring
           Article 10 in Kärnten (paragraph 1(a) as regards the                into force the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
           exemption of small installations, for which the                     sions necessary to comply with the directive not later than
           Directive does not provide), in Steiermark                          36 months following the date of its entry into force. The
           (paragraph 1(b) and (c) as regards the composition                  directive was brought into force on the day of its publica-
           and properties of the sludge and the type of treat-                 tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities
           ment) and Vorarlberg (paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) as                (25 July 1998) and should therefore have been transposed
           regards quantities of sludge, the composition and                   into national law by 27 January 2001. Under Article 10(2)
           properties of the sludge and the type of treatment),                of the directive Member States were to inform the
                                                                               Commission of the measures of transposition adopted by
2.   order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the                     25 January 2002.
     proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 209, 25.7.1998, p. 46.
The Austrian Republic was to implement Directive 86/278/EEC
by the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 January
1995.
                                                                          Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of
Although that time-limit has passed, certain provisions of that                Spain against the Council of the European Union
directive have not been fully and correctly implemented in the
Bundesländer of Kärnten, Steiermark and Vorarlberg.                                                 (Case C-342/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 226/25)
(1) OJ 1986 L 181, p. 6.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
Communities on 4 August 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,                    —     Infringement of Article 253 EC (failure to state reasons),
represented by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an                       on the ground that the contested regulation is not based
address for service in Luxembourg.                                             on a technical study showing why it is necessary;
                                                                         —     Misuse of powers, in that the tariff quota has been allo-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    cated arbitrarily between the countries benefitting from it.
—     annul Council Regulation No 975/2003 (1) of 5 June
      2003 opening and providing for the administration of a
      tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN              (1) OJ L 141, 7.6.2003, p. 1.
      codes 16041411, 16041418 and 16042070;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 4 August 2003 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                       Finland
The Kingdom of Spain submits that Regulation No 975/2003                                           (Case C-344/03)
infringes Community law for the following reasons:
                                                                                                   (2003/C 226/26)
—     Breach of the principle of Community preference, given
      that measures such as those adopted by the contested               An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
      regulation are appropriate only where Community pro-               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 August
      duction is inadequate, which has not been established. The         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
      Spanish tuna canning industry is particularly prejudiced           sented by G. Valero Jordana and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with
      by this regulation;                                                an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Distortion of competition in the market: owing to the fact         The Commission claims that the Court should:
      that a product has been put onto the market on more
      advantageous conditions than those laid down in the gen-           1.   Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
      eral tariff arrangements may give rise to imbalances in the             obligations under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the
      market concerned, with negative economic consequences;                  conservation of wild birds (1), as amended by the 1994
                                                                              Act of Accession, inasmuch as the Republic of Finland has
                                                                              not applied the derogation laid down in Article 9(1) of the
—     Procedural irregularities in that the contested regulation is           directive in accordance with the criteria laid down therein,
      not based on any technical study showing why it is nee-                 since it has not indicated that the conditions for a deroga-
      ded. Nor is Community production of canned tuna inade-                  tion under that provision are fulfilled in the case of spring
      quate and such as to provide grounds justifying the                     hunting of certain water birds in mainland Finland and the
      regulation;                                                             district of Åland, as regards in particular the application of
                                                                              the criteria ‘no other satisfactory solution’ and ‘small num-
                                                                              bers’ with respect especially to the species eider (Somateria
—     Infringement of Article 12 of the EC-ACP Partnership                    mollissima), golden-eye (Bucephala clangula), red-breasted
      Agreement, since the ACP States were not informed of                    merganser (Mergus serrator), goosander (Mergus mergan-
      the adoption of a measure affecting them;                               ser), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and tufted duck (Aythya
                                                                              fuligula), and
—     Infringement of the preferential agreements with the ACP
      and GSP-Drugs (Generalised System of Preferences —                 2.   Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
      Drugs) States, since the tariff quota to be allocated pur-
      suant to the measures adopted in the contested regulation
      will render ineffective the preferential regimes referred to       Pleas in law and main arguments
      by allowing canned tuna from industrially developed
      countries to compete in the Community market with                  The Commission submits that the ‘no other satisfactory solu-
      that from ACP and GSP-Drugs States;                                tion’ criterion in the directive is not satisfied if autumn hunting
                                                                         of the same species is possible, albeit in smaller numbers and
                                                                         possibly in more difficult conditions from the hunter's point of
—     Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since          view or in different hunting locations. The Commission con-
      investments made by Community traders in the ACP and               siders that the ‘no other satisfactory solution’ requirement is to
      GSP-Drugs States will be affected, account being taken of          be assessed in a concrete and specific manner, not abstractly
      the conditions for market access for products originating          and at a general level. Local circumstances must be taken into
      in those countries;                                                account in the assessment.