CELEX: C2003/135/09
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-07 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

C 135/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
      use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual                  the light of all the factual and legal evidence available to it,
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/               whether or not the results of analyses of samples of a
      391/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of                        manufacturer’s products are to be admitted as evidence that the
      5 December 1995;                                                             manufacturer has infringed a Member State’s national rules on
                                                                                   foodstuffs where the manufacturer has been unable to exercise
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                his right to a second opinion under the second subparagraph of
                                                                                   Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397. In that regard, the national
                                                                                   court must verify that the national rules on the taking of
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
                                                                                   evidence applicable to such an action are not less favourable
                                                                                   than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of
                                                                                   equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible
                                                                                   or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by
                                                                                   Community law (the principle of effectiveness). In addition, the
                                                                                   national court must consider whether such evidence must be
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           excluded in order to avoid measures incompatible with com-
                                                                                   pliance with fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair
                                                                                   hearing before a tribunal as laid down in Article 6(1) of the
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                   European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
                                                                                   Fundamental Freedoms.
                            of 10 April 2003
in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
     the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (1)
(Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs —
Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples
— Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility
of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an
         infringement of the right to a second opinion)
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 135/08)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                     (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  of 10 April 2003
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                   ties v French Republic ( 1)
In Case C-276/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Joachim Steffensen, on the interpretation of the second                      Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the pre-
subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC                                             scribed period)
of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989
L 186, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                                                        (2003/C 135/09)
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                                         (Language of the case: French)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive                               in the European Court Reports)
      89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of
      foodstuffs is to be construed as meaning that a manufacturer
      may rely on a right to a second opinion based on that article
      against the competent authorities of a Member State where              In Case C-114/02, Commission of the European Communities
      those authorities claim that his products fail to meet the             (Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
      standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs on the           and E. Puisais): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      basis of an analysis of samples of those products taken from           adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      retail outlets.                                                        necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
2.    It is for the national court before which an action such as that       the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
      at issue in the main proceedings has been brought to assess, in        L 123, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/7
obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),                    — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the                         mans, President of Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr
Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate                      (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April                  Registrar, made an order on 6 February 2003, the operative
2003, in which it:                                                              part of which is as follows:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,         1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
      to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament               2.    Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the French Republic has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                    (1 ) OJ C 44, 16.2.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                Action brought on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                      Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                                           (Case C-87/03)
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                                          (2003/C 135/11)
                            (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 6 February 2003                                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties on 27 February 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
in Case C-492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH v                                   by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                             service in Luxembourg.
(Commission Decision 1999/244/EC of 26 March 1999                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
amending Decision 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third
countries from which the import of fishery products is
authorised for human consumption — Prohibition on the                           —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2341/2002 (1) of
importation of caviar from Kazakhstan — Non-contractual                               20 December 2002 fixing for 2003 the fishing oppor-
liability of the Community — Appeal partly manifestly                                 tunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks
                inadmissible and partly unfounded)                                    and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community
                                                                                      waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch
                                                                                      limitations are required, in so far as it allocates certain
                             (2003/C 135/10)                                          quotas to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of
                                                                                      the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, and
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                —     order the Council to pay the costs.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —     Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination: on
In Case 492/01 P: Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, established in                             completion of the transitional period on 31 December
Hamburg (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rabe, lawyer —                                2002, the situation of Spanish fishermen is the same as
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                         that of fishermen of the remaining Member States and
the European Communities, Fifth Chamber, of 23 October                                they should enjoy equal access to waters and resources.
2001 in Case T-155/99 Dieckmann & Hansen v Commission                                 However, by the contested regulation, Spanish fishermen
[2001] ECR II-3143, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                          are treated differently, since they are not allowed to fish
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                            in the waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea for
European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejhar)                            virtually all the species subject to quotas.