CELEX: C1999/226/43
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-224/99: Action brought on 10 June 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

7.8.1999                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/25
Action brought on 9 June 1999 by the Commission of the                      while the 1 316 ‘outstanding’ or ‘very interesting’ sites rep-
   European Communities against the French Republic                         resented 13.6 % of that territory. This demonstrates that, in
                                                                            addition to the sites being insufficient in number, the selected
                                                                            area of the notified sites is insufficient.
                           (Case C-220/99)
                                                                            The Member States were to transmit their full list of sites
                                                                            before 9 June 1995. Even if it is taken into account that the
                           (1999/C 226/42)
                                                                            format to be used still did not exist on that date, the
                                                                            information could have been submitted rapidly once that
                                                                            format had been notified, on 19 December 1996. However,
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            on 15 March 1999, of the 672 sites referred to in the list, 379
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 1999
                                                                            had been notified with appropriate information for the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                            purposes of Article 4(1) of the directive while 293 sites had
by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-
                                                                            been notified without that information.
Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to its Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner                (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
Centre Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the
    full list of sites which is referred to in the first subparagraph
    of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May                Action brought on 10 June 1999 by the Commission of
    1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of                  the European Communities against the French Republic
    wild flora and fauna, and information on the sites in
    accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4(1),
    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                   (Case C-224/99)
    that directive;
                                                                                                     (1999/C 226/43)
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 June
                                                                            1999 by the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                            Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                            of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
According to the Commission, the process of proposing sites
in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
directive must be carried out in the broadest possible manner
by including in the national list all the sites hosting the natural         1. declare that, by failing to take the requisite steps to
habitat types in Annex I and the native species in Annex II                     implement the judgment delivered by the Court on
which exist in the territory of the Member State concerned, in                  13 March 1997 in Commission v France (1), the French
so far as those sites are representative and relevant having                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
regard to the criteria set out in Annex III, with a view to the                 228(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
objective of conservation pursued by the directive. The French                  300 EC);
Republic has failed to comply with the obligation to transmit
a full list of the sites concerned since, as the French authorities
                                                                            2. order the French Republic to pay the Commission a fine
themselves acknowledge, the 672 sites appearing on the
                                                                                of EUR 142 425 per day in respect of each day, from the
various lists transmitted in turn do not include any military
                                                                                date of notification of the judgment in which it was found
land. Nor has the French Republic proposed any site in respect
                                                                                not to have fulfilled its obligations, on which it failed to
of the habitats of a number of natural habitat types referred to
                                                                                comply with the abovementioned requirement;
in Annex I or of a number of species in Annex II when,
according to the available scientific data, those habitat types
are present in its territory. The Commission stases, third, that            3. order the French Republic to pay the costs of this case.
the number of sites notified is in any event insufficient having
regard to the sites on French territory meriting inclusion in the
national list; it considers that the French Government should               Pleas in law and main arguments
have transmitted a list which, if not identical to the list of
1 316 ‘outstanding’ or ‘very interesting’ sites appearing in the            — in its reply to the reasoned opinion, the French Govern-
survey compiled by the National Museum for Natural History                      ment acknowledged that no measure had been adopted to
under the auspices of that government, listing the entire area                  implement the judgment in which the Court found that
of each of those sites, should at least have been largely based                 ‘by maintaining in force Article L 213-1 of the Code du
on it. Furthermore, the 672 sites notified by the French                        Travail prohibiting nightwork by women in industry ... the
Republic represent, in area, only 2.5 % of national territory,                  French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under ...
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
    Council Directive 76/207/EEC ... ’. The French Govern-              — in the alternative, by failing to inform the Commission
    ment’s argument that it had not been possible to initiate               forthwith of such measures the Portuguese Republic failed
    consultations with labour and employers with a view to                  to fulfil its obligations under those same provisions;
    submitting legislation to Parliament on nightwork is
    wholly without foundation. It is settled case-law that a            — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
    Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or
    situations in its national legal system to justify a failure to
    comply with obligations under Community law.                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— The Commission refers to its communications published in              — The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
    the Official Journal on 21 August 1996 (2) and 28 February              paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article
    1997 (3). It considers that the circumstances in which a                10 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
    financial penalty may be waived do not pertain. Based on                measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
    the principle set out in those communications, it has                   them into their domestic law before the expiry of the
    calculated the amount of the fine by attributing a coef-                period prescribed for doing so. That period expired on
    ficient of 9/20 to the seriousness of the breach (being the             25 October 1997 without Portugal having brought into
    sum of a coefficient of 6/10, based on the importance of                force the necessary provisions.
    the Community provisions breached, and a coefficient of
    3/10, based on the effects of the breach on the public
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36.
    interest and the interests of individuals) and a multipli-
    cation coefficient of 1.5/3 to the length of time.
(1) Case C-197/96 (1997) ECR I-1489.
(2) OJ 1996 C 242, p. 6.
(3) OJ 1997 C 63, p. 2.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                                  (Case C-229/99)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 226/45)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Action brought on 11 June 1999 by the Commission                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                            Republic                                    represented by Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                         (Case C-227/99)                                Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 226/44)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June                 Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 amending
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Directive 90/628/EEC concerning the protection of ani-
represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and António                    mals during transport (1), the French Republic has failed to
Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address            fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la              and
Cruz of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    comply with Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October            in Case C-227/99; the time-limit laid down in Article 2 of the
    1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Com-                 directive expired on 31 December 1996.
    munity airports, within the period prescribed by the first
    subparagraph of Article 23(1) thereof, the Portuguese
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first       (1) OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52.
    paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article
    249 of the EC Treaty as well as under the first subparagraph
    of Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC; and