CELEX: C2004/071/19
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-29/04: Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

C 71/12                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         20.3.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                        Austria
The Spanish authorities have not officially designated as
bathing areas, the beaches Viela/A Videira, Niño do Corvo and
Canabal in the municipality of Moaña (Pontevedra), in spite of
                                                                                                    (Case C-29/04)
the frequent presence of bathers on those beaches. In the
absence of a ban on bathing, the presence of bathers requires
the designation of those beaches as bathing waters, for the
purpose of Directive 76/160. In the absence of such a                                               (2004/C 71/19)
designation, those three beaches have not been subject to the
surveillance required by the Directive.
The waters of the Ría de Vigo do not conform to the guideline              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
values, laid down by Directive 79/923, for faecal coliforms, in            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
spite of the fact that nearly all of those waters have been                on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
designated by the Spanish authorities as shellfish waters.                 Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, acting as Agent,
Accordingly, Article 5 of that directive requires the establish-           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
ment of a programme to reduce pollution in order to ensure
that the designated waters conform to the values fixed in the
Annex to Directive 79/923. However, the pollution-reduction
programme for the Ría de Vigo has not been notified to the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission.
                                                                           1.    declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
(1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1; Spanish Special Edition 15/01, p. 133.                   obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
(2) OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47; Spanish Special Edition 15/02, p. 156.                 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
                                                                                 award of public service contracts (1), in that award of the
                                                                                 refuse disposal contract entered into by the town of
                                                                                 Mödling failed to comply with the procedures and
                                                                                 advertising rules laid down in Article 8, in conjunction
                                                                                 with Article 11(1) and Article 15(2), of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal De
                                                                           2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Grand Instance de Paris (Third Chamber, Second Division)
by order of that Court of 5 December 2003 in the case of
Société TOD’S SpA (formerly named EMA Srl) and SARL
TOD’S France formerly named DEVA France against S.A.
    Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté Technisynthese
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-28/04)
                          (2004/C 71/18)                                   On 21 May 1999, the municipality of Mödling decided to use
                                                                           its own vehicle to carry out its statutory duties relating to
                                                                           refuse disposal. A company, AbfallGmbH, was incorporated
                                                                           for this purpose. The whole of the company’s share capital
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     was held by one member, namely the municipality of Mödling.
European Communities by order of the Tribunal De Grand                     The contract for disposal, under which the municipality of
Instance de Paris (Paris Regional Court) of 5 December 2003,               Mödling transferred exclusive responsibility for the collection
received at the Court Registry on 28 January 2004, for a                   and treatment of waste to AbfallGmbH, was entered into on
preliminary ruling in the case of Société TOD’S SpA (formerly              15 September 1999. The contract was entered into for an
named EMA Srl) and SARL TOD’S France formerly named                        unlimited period and came into force with retrospective effect
DEVA France against S.A. Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté                on 1 July 1999. Two weeks after the conclusion of the contract
Technisynthese, on the following question:                                 for refuse disposal, the town council of the municipality of
                                                                           Mödling decided that the municipality of Mödling, as sole
                                                                           member of AbfallGmbH, should transfer 49 % of its shares to
Does Article 12 of the EC Treaty, which lays down the general              a private undertaking.
principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality,
mean that the right of an author to claim in a Member State
the copyright protection afforded by the law of that State may
not be subject to a distinction based on the country of origin             The Republic of Austria is of the opinion that the provisions
of the work?                                                               of Directive 92/50/EEC do not apply to the award of the waste
                                                                           disposal contract to AbfallGmbH, as it involved a so-called ‘in-
                                                                           house’ transaction.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 71/13
The Commission claims that the agreement of 15 September                 Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
1999 to transfer the responsibility for the collection and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
treatment of waste from the municipality of Mödling to
AbfallGmbH does not fall to be classified as an ‘internal                                           (Case C-32/04)
transfer’ within the administration of the municipality of
Mödling, as the municipality of Mödling ceased to exercise the
control over AbfallGmbH that it would have over its own                                             (2004/C 71/21)
departments. The transfer of responsibility for the carrying out
of public services accordingly involves a public service contract
which was subject to the compulsory tender procedure.                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                         2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                         represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission                      —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                              Spain                                            Commission Directive 2001/58/EC of 27 July 2001
                                                                               amending for the second time Directive 91/155/EEC
                         (Case C-31/04)                                        defining and laying down the detailed arrangements for
                                                                               the system of specific information relating to dangerous
                         (2004/C 71/20)                                        preparations in implementation of Article 14 of European
                                                                               Parliament and Council Directive 1999/45/EC and relat-
                                                                               ing to dangerous substances in implementation of
                                                                               Article 27 of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (safety data
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                      sheets) (1), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Janu-                   Commission thereof, the French Republic has failed to
ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by K. Banks and F. Castillo de la Torre, of the
Commission’s Legal Service, with an address for service in               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 July
      Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of             2002.
      the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
      certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the
                                                                         (1) OJ 2001 L 212, p. 24.
      information society (1), or in any event by failing to
      communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 13 of that directive.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    of Luxembourg
The period prescribed by the Directive for its transposition                                         Case C-33/04
into national law expired on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                                    (2004/C 71/22)
(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 29 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by W. Wils and M. Shotter, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.