CELEX: C1998/278/44
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-255/98)

C 278/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the principles developed
by the case-law cited in its claim apply to professions and
situations which fall within the scope of general system'          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
Directives or sectorial' Directives but in which the               those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed for
conditions needing to be fulfilled under those Directives in        the transposition of the Directive expired on 1 February
order to enjoy recognition have not been complied with.             1997.
Even where a Directive concerning the mutual recognition
of diplomas does not apply, the Member States are obliged
to ensure freedom of movement for migrant workers,                  (1) OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 8.
                                                                    (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
whether they are employed or self-employed. It would be
inconsistent for Directives which are designed to provide
for mutual recognition to have a restrictive effect on
freedom of establishment by denying a Community
national holding a diploma which does not fulfil the
conditions laid down by those Directives the possibility of
relying on the Vlassopoulou case-law when he could
certainly have done so in the absence of such Directives.           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof, Austria by judgment of that court of 30 June
                                                                    1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
(1) Judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987]             Wettbewerb against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH
    ECR p. 4097.
(2) Judgment of 7 May 1991 in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou                                    (Case C-254/98)
    [1991] ECR I-2357.                                                                        (98/C 278/43)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by judgment of the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, received at the
                                                                    Court Registry on 13 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the             in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium               against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH on the following
                                                                    question:
                       (Case C-253/98)
                        (98/C 278/42)
                                                                    Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                    precluding legislation under which bakers, butchers and
                                                                    grocers may not offer for sale on rounds from locality to
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                locality or from door to door goods which they are
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             entitled to sell under the terms of their trading licence
on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                   unless they also carry on their trade from fixed business
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                     premises situated in the administrative district in which
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting           they offer the goods for sale in the abovementioned
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             manner or in a municipality adjacent thereto, and
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,               furthermore may offer for sale on rounds from locality to
Kirchberg.                                                          locality or from door to door only such goods as are also
                                                                    offered for sale at the said fixed business premises?
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain
     and administrative measures necessary in order to                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     comply with Commission Directive 96/40/EC of                                           (Case C-255/98)
     25 June 1996 establishing a common model for an
     identity card for inspectors carrying out port State                                     (98/C 278/44)
     control (1), alternatively by failing within the
     prescribed time limit to communicate the measures
     necessary to comply therewith, the Kingdom of                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     Article 2 of that Directive and under the EC Treaty,           the European Communities on 14 July 1998 by the
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/25
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz                           Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                        European Communities against the French Republic
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                                                   (Case C-256/98)
Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                                                    (98/C 278/45)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          15 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/324/EC (1) on the
                                                                          Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
     clearance of the accounts in respect of the expenditure
                                                                          Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
     for 1997 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, as regards
                                                                          Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     the financial adjustment imposed on Spain, and
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                          that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Ð declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative measures necessary in
Ð Infringement of essential procedural requirements and                        order to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
     lack of a statement of reasons:                                           21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                               and of wild fauna and flora (1), in that it has omitted
                                                                               to take the measures necessary in order to comply
     The contested Decision cannot incorporate a financial                     with Article 6 of that Directive, the French Republic
     adjustment since it was issued at the stage of clearance                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
     of accounts (Article 5(2)(b) of Council Regulation                        and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
     (EEC) No 729/70 (2) and not at the stage of                               EC Treaty,
     verification of compliance (Article 5(2)(c) of
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70). Only at the latter stage                Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     is it appropriate to verify whether the expenditure
     incurred is in conformity with the Community
     provisions. Any financial adjustment made otherwise                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     than in connection with the clearance of accounts
     which is a preliminary to it is void through failure to
     follow the correct clearance procedure laid down in                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (3).                           those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed by
     Moreover, although the Kingdom of Spain has learned                  Article 23 of the Directive for its transposition expired on
     why the Commission doubted the correctness of a                      5 June 1994.
     particular budgetary item, it has been unable to
     ascertain why the Commission rejected the                            (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
     explanations offered by the Kingdom of Spain.                        (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
Ð Infringement of the applicable Community law:
     The calculation made by the Spanish authorities is                   Appeal brought on 15 July 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
     correct and is in conformity with the applicable                     against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by
     Council Regulation (EC) No 150/95 (4) and                            the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
     Commission Regulations (EC) No 157/95 (5) and (EC)                   the European Communities in Case T-165/95 between
     No 158/95 (6).                                                       Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
(1 ) OJ L 141, 13.5.1998, p. 38.                                                                  (Case C-257/98 P)
(2)  Official Journal, English special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
(3)  OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.
                                                                                                    (98/C 278/46)
(4)  OJ L 22, 31.1.1995, p. 1.
(5)  OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 1.
(6)  OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 4.                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
                                                                          1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-165/95
                                                                          between Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the