CELEX: C2003/171/24
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-225/03: Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/17
       designated by the Flemish Region and is incomplete.                   Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana
       Finally, the report on the Flemish Region does not                    Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO), represented by Emilio Cappelli,
       reproduce all the documents and information required by               Paolo De Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar.
       Article 10 in conjunction with Annex V to the directive.
                                                                             The appellants claim that the Court should:
—      The Walloon Region has infringed Articles 10(2) and 12
       of the directive in that the procedure of defining waters             —     set aside the judgment of Court of First Instance (Second
       and subsequently designating vulnerable zones covers                        Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-61/00 and
       only a part of its territory and was finished belatedly and                 T-62/00.
       the designation of vulnerable zones remains insufficient
       to date. In addition, the competent Walloon authority did
       not take into account the pollution of coastal and marine
       waters when identifying waters affected by pollution and              Pleas in law and main arguments
       designating vulnerable zones, in breach of Article 3 of
       the directive. It also infringed Article 5 of the directive,
                                                                             The appellants allege that the judgment of the Court of First
       since after it designated two vulnerable zones in its
                                                                             Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
       territory the Walloon Region should have established
       action programmes within the prescribed period, whereas
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
       those programmes have not yet been adopted to date.
                                                                                   ciple of force majeure;
                                                                             —     erroneous interpretation and misapplication of the prin-
( 1) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning                   ciple of proportionality and of Articles 9(1) and 17(2)(b)
     the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from            of Regulation No 355/77; inadequate reasoning inasmuch
     agricultural sources (OJ L 375 of 21.12.1991, p. 1).                          as it was manifestly illogical and contradictory;
                                                                             —     breach of the rights of the rights of the defence for failure
                                                                                   to fulfil the obligation to carry out an inquiry;
                                                                             —     failure to rule on whether a measure of inquiry was
                                                                                   appropriate.
Appeal brought on 21 May 2003 by Associazione Produt-
tori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana                      Action brought on 22 May 2003 by the Commission of
Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) against the judgment deliver-                     the European Communities against the French Republic
ed on 6 March 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                                                   (Case C-225/03)
Cases T-61/00 and T-62/00 Associazione Produttori Oli-
vicoli Laziali (APOL) and Associazione Italiana Produttori
                  Olivicoli (AIPO) v Commission                                                        (2003/C 171/24)
                          (Case C-222/03 P)                                  An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 May
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by L. Ström and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
                           (2003/C 171/23)                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                             The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                             the Court should:
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2003                     1.    declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Communities in Joined Cases T-61/00 and T-62/                             Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of
00 Associazione Produttori Olivicoli Laziali (APOL) and                            the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic
Associazione Italiana Produttori Olivicoli (AIPO) v Com-                           medical devices ( 1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
mission was brought before the Court of Justice of the                             the Commission of such provisions, the French Republic
European Communities on 21 May 2003 by Associazione                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
                                                                              State the person has the option of being voluntarily
                                                                              insured in respect of a number of branches of social
                                                                              security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
                                                                              have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?
Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro           If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free                question is referred in the alternative:
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,            3.    In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that                   of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The                    incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
Commission received from the French authorities Order                         ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal                          a residence requirement?
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the              (1 ) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
                                                                        by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
                                                                        Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.
                                                                                             LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy
                                                                                                   (Case C-228/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 171/26)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
        van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank                     (Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
                         (Case C-227/03)                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:
                         (2003/C 171/25)                                When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
                                                                        89/104/EEC ( 1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
                                                                        relating to trade marks:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) What are the criteria
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at                   (a)   on the basis of which the question of regarding a
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling                         product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                           and
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:                                                                    (b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
                                                                                    as other than spare parts and accessories which can
1.    Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 ( 1) pre-                      also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
      clude legislation of a Member State under which a person                      are to be determined?
      who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
      remains insured under that legislation only if he continues       (2) Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
      to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under               mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
      the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain              the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
      other branches of social security irrespective of his place             is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
      of residence?                                                           subparagraph on another basis?