CELEX: C2000/063/24
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-478/99: Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

C 63/12                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.3.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 16 December 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the rules, regulations                                       Sweden
     and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Com-
     mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the
     protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                                     (Case C-478/99)
     biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive
     within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
     89/391/EEC) (1) into national law within the prescribed
     period, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its                                     (2000/C 63/24)
     obligations under the EC Treaty;
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        16 December 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Leo Parpal and Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as Agents, with
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in             an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo
Case C-460/99 (2) the period for transposition prescribed in           Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner
Article 2 of Directive 95/30/EC expired on 30 November                 Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
1996.
(1) OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41.
(2) See p. 11 of this Official Journal.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993
                                                                             on unfair terms in consumer contracts by not adopting the
                                                                             laws and other provisions required to transpose the annex
                                                                             referred to in Article 3(3) of the directive into national law;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of
8 December 1999 in the case of Ambulanz Glöckner                       2. Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
against Landkreis Südwestpfalz, joined as third parties:
1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesverband Rheinland-
Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landesverband
Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the
                       public interest, Mainz
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (Case C-475/99)
                            (2000/C 63/23)                             The Commission considers that it is important for the Directive
                                                                       to be implemented in such a way that the requirement for
                                                                       legal certainty is ensured and that the legal situation is clear to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 individuals so that they can become acquainted with all their
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-                  rights.
gericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Adminis-
trative Court) of 8 December 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 15 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ambulanz Glöckner against Landkreis Südwestpfalz,              Article 8 of the Directive establishes that the directive has
joined as third parties: 1. Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund Landesver-         minimal character whilst Article 3(3) refers to an indicative list
band Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., 2. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz Landes-            in the annex. Member States can add new conditions, formulate
verband Rheinland-Pfalz e.V., participant: representative of the       conditions more strictly (so as to make them more restrictive
public interest, Mainz, on the following question:                     for traders) or alter the ‘scope’ defined in point 2(a)2 of the
                                                                       list. On the other hand, they cannot exclude terms or formulate
Is the concession of a monopoly for the provision of ambu-             them in a way less favourable for consumers. The fact that
lance services over a defined geographical area compatible             Article 3(3) refers to the list and that the seventeenth recital of
with Article 86(1) and Article 81 of the EC Treaty?                    the preamble states that the scope of the terms referred to may
                                                                       only be the subject of amplification or more restrictive editing
                                                                       by the Member States in their national laws also leads to the
                                                                       conclusion that the list must be enacted in national legislation.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/13
The Commission considers that the list in the annex to                  Appeal brought on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant
Directive 93/13 is designed to establish a functioning internal         and 16 others against the order made on 29 September
market and to improve consumer protection, based inter alia             1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
on information for consumers. This is to be achieved by                 Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
amplifying and specifying the general criteria indicated in             T-148/98 between J.G. Evans and others and the Com-
Article 3(1) of the Directive. This increases legal certainty for       mission of the European Communities and T-162/98
both Swedish and foreign economic agents and consumers                  between South Wales Small Mines Association and the
whilst at the same time the various authorities apply the law                    Commission of the European Communities
in a more uniform way. The Commission also believes that the
list is of invaluable assistance for traders when they draw up
their standard terms and conditions and that the number of                                      (Case C-480/99 P)
possible disputes can be reduced in this way. In the Com-
mission’s view, these aims, and the particular argument                                            (2000/C 63/26)
concerning clarity and information, can only be achieved if
the list in the annex to the Directive is made generally known
by being published as a part of the legal act by which the              An appeal against the order made on 29 September by the
directive is implemented.                                               Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in joined cases T-148/98 (1) between J.G. Evans
                                                                        and others and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.                                                and T-162/ 98 (2) between South Wales Small Mines Associ-
                                                                        ation and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant and
                                                                        16 others, established in the United Kingdom, represented by
                                                                        Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Thomas
                                                                        Graham, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                 at the Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18, rue des Glacis.
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1999 in
the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against Haupt-
                         zollamt Aachen                                 The Appellants claim:
                         (Case C-479/99)                                1. that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            29 September 1999 be set aside;
                          (2000/C 63/25)
                                                                        2. that the Application to annul is admissible and that the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Court of First Instance should deal with the substance of
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  the Application;
dorf (Düsseldorf Finance Court) of 8 December 1999, received
at the Court Registry on 16 December 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                        3. alternatively, that the issue of admissibility should be
ruling in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against
                                                                            referred back to a freshly constituted Court of First
Hauptzollamt Aachen on the following questions:
                                                                            Instance, and that the Appellants should first have the
1.      Is the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Annex I                 opportunity to have knowledge of, and to comment on,
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June                         all evidence adduced or observations filed by SWSMA;
1997 (1) amending Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on            4. that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and the
the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that                application below.
electronic assemblies which enable automatic data-processing
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound
cards) must be classified under heading 8471, 8473 or 8543?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2.      Are Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June
1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of
4 November 1997 (2) amending Annex I to Council Regulation              The Appellants bring this appeal against the contested order
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature             on the basis of a breach of the procedure before the Court of
and on the Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as, in                 First Instance which adversely affects the interest of the
accordance with them, the sound cards described at 1 are                Appellants and/or infringements of Community law by the
covered by heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?                   Court of First Instance, in particular:
                                                                        1. The Court of First Instance failed to apply the relevant law
(1) OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35.
(2) OJ 1997 L 312, p. 1.
                                                                            in that it failed to find that the Appellants were concerned
                                                                            by the Commission’s decision under Article 33 ECSC and
                                                                            were entitled to notification of the Decision as persons
                                                                            concerned by the Decision under Article 15 ECSC;