CELEX: C2000/034/34
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-454/99: Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

C 34/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
competent national authorities must assess whether the know-                — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
ledge acquired in the host Member State, either during a course                  the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,
of study or by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order
to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking. The
same reasoning must surely apply to knowledge acquired in                   — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as
the Member State of origin.                                                      required by the relevant Community Regulations,
                                                                            — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
A company which carries out works on the territory of a
                                                                                 quota was exhausted, and
Member State other than that in which it is established
provides services there. The refusal of the French authorities to
examine whether the qualifications of its employees are                     — in failing, (in 1988 only), to take sufficient measures to
equivalent to those required by French legislation and to                        prevent the mis-reporting of landings of mackerel
indicate the appropriate compensatory measures constitutes
an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, since it prevents
undertakings established in a Member State other than France                — in failing to take administrative or penal action against
from providing their services with the aid of their own                          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or
employees. The host Member State is obliged to ascertain that                    against such other person as was responsible for such
the conditions it lays down for the exercise of the profession                   infringement,
do not needlessly duplicate the equivalent legal conditions
already satisfied in the Member State of establishment.
                                                                            the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations
                                                                            imposed on it by i) article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No. 170/83(1) and of article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC)
(1) Council Directive of 18 June 1992 on a second general system            No. 2057/82 (2) (with respect to the period to 1 August
    for the recognition of professional education and training to           1987) and article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 (3)
    supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.                   (in respect of the period thereafter); ii) of article 10(2)
(2) Case C-340/89, [1991] ECR I-2357.                                       of Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 and article 11(2) of
(3) See Case C-164/94 Aranitis v Land Berlin [1996] ECR I-135,              Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87; iii) of article 9 of Regu-
    paragraph 32.                                                           lation (EEC) No. 2241/87; (iv) article 1(2) of Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) 2057/82 or article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2057/82
                                                                            or article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 in combination with
                                                                            article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83;
                                                                        2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Com-                          Pleas in law and main arguments
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                        — The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate
                                                                            detailed rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas
                         (Case C-454/99)                                    allocated to it, contrary to Article 5 (2) of Regulation
                                                                            170/83.
                          (2000/C 34/34)
                                                                        — The United Kingdom has not ensured compliance with
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article 1 of
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                 Regulations 2057/82 (as regards 1985 to 1 August 1987)
the European Communities on 30 November 1999 by the                         and 2241/87 (from 1 August 1987). These Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      imposed more specific obligations on Member States than
Mr Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Mr Keir Fitch, an                    Regulation 170/83, intended in each case to ensure
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the               compliance with the regulations in force concerning
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as               conservations and control measures.
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Member of the Legal Service of the                   — The United Kingdom, by failing to record landings of
Commission, Centre Wagner C-254, Luxembourg, pursuant
                                                                            stocks subject to TACs or Quota (1988 only), has infringed
to Article 226 EC.                                                          Article 9 of Regulation 2241/87.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             — The United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under
                                                                            Article 10 of Regulation 2057/82 or Article 11 of Regu-
1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988                lation 2241/87 to prohibit fishery provisionally when the
     and 1990                                                               quota allocated to it was deemed to have been exhausted.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 34/19
— The United Kingdom’s failure to take penal or administra-                laid down in the directive. That period expired on 30 June
     tive action against the skippers and vessel owners found              1996 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     not to have complied with the relevant legislation concern-           visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
     ing conservation and control measures is an infringement              the conclusions of the Commission.
     of Article 1(2) of Regulation 2057/82 as amended
     (Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 from 1 August 1987).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 of 25 January 1983 estab-
    lishing a Community system for the conservation and manage-
    ment of fishery resources, OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of
    the Member States, OJ L 220, 29.7.1982, p. 1.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
    lishing certain control measures for fishing activities OJ L 207,
    29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                   (Case C-466/99)
                                                                                                    (2000/C 34/36)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
of the European Communities against the United                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
                               Kingdom                                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                           Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                           (Case C-455/99)                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                            (2000/C 34/35)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        — Declare that, by failing to forward to the Commission
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                          information concerning plans for the management and
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the                   disposal of waste, hazardous waste, packaging and packag-
office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal                   ing waste, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                     obligations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 of Directives
                                                                               75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC respective-
                                                                               ly (3);
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws regulations
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/62/EC (1) of 20 December 1994 concerning
     packaging and packaging waste, the United Kingdom has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                               The Italian Republic should have forwarded to the Commission
                                                                           the information required under Directives 75/442/EEC,
                                                                           91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC on the drawing up of plans for
                                                                           the management and disposal of waste, hazardous waste,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            packaging and packaging waste pursuant to Articles 7, 6 and
                                                                           14 thereof respectively.
Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,             The Italian Republic failed to do so, nor did the Commission
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation               receive the requisite information following the reasoned
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                  opinion notified to the Italian authorities on 21 October 1998.