CELEX: C1996/210/15
Language: en
Date: 1996-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-170/96)

20 . 7 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 210/7
        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
        same provisions,                                                 European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                                 European Union
 — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                                              ( Case C-1 70/96 )
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 210/ 15 )
  Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those              brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the              Communities on 15 May 1 996 by the Commission of the
 Directive expired on 31 October 1993 ,                                  European Communities, represented by Pieter Van Nuffel ,
                                                                         acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 (') OJ No L 22 7, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of
 (2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal.                               the Commission of the European Communities, Wagner
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Act of the Council of 4 March 1996 entitled
                                                                             'Joint action on airport transit arrangements ' ('),
 Action brought on 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 — order the Council to pay the costs .
                          ( Case C- 1 69/96 )
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                            ( 96/C 210/14
                                                                        — Infringement of the EC Treaty :
 An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  The matters governed by the contested Act fall within
 15 May 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the competence of the European Community and not
 Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                      within the area of cooperation in the fields of justice and
 acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg                  home affairs ( CJHA ). Where the EC Treaty confers
 at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service ,            powers on the institutions , they may only exercise them
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                    in accordance with that Treaty; they may not legally
                                                                             exercise them within any other framework , even a
                                                                             framework established by the Treaty on European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 Union .
— declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,              As regards Articles 3 and 4 and the Annex to the
       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 contested Act, the Commission considers that the
      comply with Commission Directive 93/ 105/EC of                         underlying interpretation, to the effect that travellers
       25 November 1993 laying down Annex VII D ,                            ( ordinarily ) remaining within the international areas of
      containing information required for the technical                      airports do not cross an external frontier of a Member
       dossier referred to in Article         12 of the seventh              State, is erroneous; the criterion employed by
      amendment of Council Directive 67/548/EEC ('), the                     Article 100c of the EC Treaty is not the crossing of a
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations               checkpoint. It is clear from a systematic interpretation of
      under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                     the relevant provisions that airport transit visas form an
      Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 93/105/EEC,                          integral part of the provisions relating to visa policy as a
                                                                             whole ; that policy falls, in principle , within the sphere of
— declare , in the alternative , that by failing to inform the               CJHA, save in two respects, one of which is the
      Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese                         determination of the list of third countries concerned .
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      same provisions,                                                       As regards Article 2(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the contested Act, the
                                                                             Commission considers that, having regard to their real
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                           meaning, those provisions — which , read in isolation ,
                                                                             fall within the area of CJHA — are covered by the
                                                                             Community's power to adopt provisions which are
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              ancillary to matters falling within the competence of the
                                                                             Community.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-165/96 ( 2 ). The time limit for transposing the                   As regards Article 2 ( 3 ), this simply repeats, within the
Directive expired on 31 December 1993 .                                      framework of CJHA, an obligation which already arises
                                                                             from Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1683/95 ( 2 ).
(') OJ No L 294, 30 . 11 . 1993 , p . 21 .
( 2 ) See page 5 of this Official Journal .                             — Breach of essential procedural requirements :
                                                                             The choice of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European
                                                                             Union as the legal basis for the Act of 4 March 199 6 ,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 210/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20 . 7 . 96
      instead of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, has resulted in a        Action brought on 29 May 1996 by the Federal Republic of
      breach of the essential procedural requirements laid               Germany against the Commission of the European
      down by that provision . Thus :                                                                Communities
                                                                                                   Case C-182/96 )
      — the Act was adopted without the submission of a
           proposal by the Commission ( it was adopted on the                                          96/C 210/ 17 )
           initiative of the French Republic ),
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
      — the Act was adopted without the European                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
           Parliament being consulted ; the European                     European Communities on 29 May 1996 by the Federal
           Parliament     was     not    even   informed   of   the      Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
           initiative ,                                                  Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs
                                                                         and Sabine Maass, probationary Regierungsràtin in the
      — since the Council chose to act within the framework              same Ministry.
           of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, its
           decision should have been unanimous, whereas, on
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the basis of Article 100c of the EC Treaty, the Act
           could ( from 1 January 1996 ) have been adopted by a          — annul Decision (K 96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
           qualified majority, pursuant to Article 100c ( 3 ) of               13 March 1 996 concerning fiscal aid in the field of
           the EC Treaty,                                                      depreciation favouring German undertakings,
      — by adopting the Act of 4 March 1996 in the
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           form of 'joint action', the Council created a
           misunderstanding as to the precise legal nature of the
           instrument .                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
( ] ) 96/ 197/JHA, OJ No L 63 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 8 .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
( 2 ) OJ No L 164, 14 . 7 . 1995 , p . 1 .                               in Case C-46/96(M .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 , p . 4 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
21 March 1996, in the case of Georg Wilkens v.                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                 Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover                          Genova — Sezione prima civile — by an order of 9 May
                           ( Case C-181 /96 )                            1996 in the case of Icat Food SRL and Ministero delle
                                                                                                 Finanze dello Stato
                             ( 96/C 210/16 )
                                                                                                  ( Case C-183 /96 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                               ( 96/C 210/ 18 )
European Communities by order of the Third Chamber of
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court ) of 21 March 1996 , which was received at the Court               European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
Registry on 29 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                    Genova — Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
the case of Georg Wilkens v. Landwirtschaftskammer                       Civil Section ) of 9 May 1996 which was received at the
( Chamber of Agriculture ) Hannover on the following                     Court Registry on 30 May 1996 . The grounds of the order
questions :                                                              and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling are the
                                                                         same as in Case C-47/95 , inter alia (') .
 1 . Does the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) of
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84, as amended by                       f 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 1 ), preclude granting a
       provisional special reference quantity to producers who
       have been asked to repay a non-marketing or conversion
       premium on account of a breach of the undertaking
       given by them ?
                                                                         Action brought on 31 May 1996 by the Commission of the
2 . If so, is that rule compatible with the Community law                      European Communities against the French Republic
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations
       and proportionality ?                                                                      ( Case C-l 84/96 )
                                                                                                      ( 96/C 210/ 19 )
 (!) OJ No L 150 , 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 35 .
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 31 May 1 996 by the Commission of