CELEX: C1995/248/17
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Clermont-Ferrand (2ème Chambre) by judgment of that court of 27 June 1995 in the case of Gérard Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du Puy-de-Dôme (Case C-257/95)

No C 248/8               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
2 . If so, is a provision of national law compatible with the                 — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
      Community legislation referred to above which, where                        setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to
      there is a reduction in the heads of livestock raised                       be met by fruit plant propagating material and fruit
      during the intermediate period between the end of the                       plants intended for fruit production, pursuant to
      reference period and the beginning of the period of the                     Council Directive 92/34/EEC ( 4 ),
      undertaking, not only excludes those animals from the
      aid but also provides that they must be excluded from                   — Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993
      the calculation of the minimum 20 % reduction in                            setting out the schedule indicating the conditions to
      output between the reference period and the period of                       be met by ornamental plant propagating material
      the undertaking, which is a prerequisite for the grant of                   and ornamental plants pursuant to Council
      the aid ( with the result, in particular, that the aid is not               Directive 91 /682/EEC ( 5 ),
      payable even in respect of the actual reduction in
       livestock envisaged in the period of the undertaking,                  — Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 23 June 1993
      where that reduction is less than 20 % of the average                       setting out the schedules indicating the conditions
       number of livestock raised in the reference period )?                      to be met by vegetable propagating and planting
                                                                                  material , other than seed pursuant to Council
f 1 ) OJ No L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                        Directive 92/33/EEC ( 6 ),
( 2 ) OJ No L 106 , 27 . 4 . 1988 , p . 28 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 361 , 29 . 12 . 1988 , p . 13 .                                 and/or by failing to communicate them to the
                                                                              Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under the penultimate articles of those
                                                                              Directives and under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Action brought on 27 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      European Communities against the French Republic                   The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         similar to those in Case C-252/95 ( 7 ); the deadlines for
                           ( Case C-256/95 )
                                                                         transposition into national law set by the Directives expired
                             ( 95/C 248/16 )                             on 1 January 1994 .
An action against the French Republic was brought before                 (>)  OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      (2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 .
27 July 1995 by the Commission of the European                           (3 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
 Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, acting as                     (4)  OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                         (<)  OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p. 9 .
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      (*)  OJ No L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .
the office of Mr Gomez de la Gruz, Wagner Centre,                        (7)  See p. 7 of this Official Journal .
 Kirchberg.
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
  1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
        regulations and administrative provisions necessary to           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
       comply with                                                       Administratif de Clermont-Ferrand (2ème Chambre) by
                                                                         judgment of that court of 27 June 1 995 in the case of Gérard
       — Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on                  Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du
           public health and animal health problems relating to                                       Puy-de-Dôme
           the killing of wild game and the placing on the                                         ( Case C-257/95 )
           market of the wild-game meat ( ! ),
                                                                                                     ( 95/C 248/17 )
        — Council Directive 92/ 117/EEC of 17 December
            1992 concerning measures for protection against               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            specified zoonoses and specified zoonotic agents in          European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
            animals and products of animal origin in order to            Administratif Clermont-Ferrand              (2eme    Chambre)
            prevent outbreaks of food-borne infections and                ( Administrative Court of Clermont-Ferrand, Second
            intoxications (2 ),                                           Chamber) of 27 June 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 28 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
        — Council Directive 92/ 118/EEC of 17 December                    of Gerard Bresle v. Prefet de la Region Auvergne ( Prefect of
            1992 laying down animal health and public health              the Auvergne Region) and Prefet du Puy-de-Dome (Prefect
            requirements governing trade in and imports into the          of Puy-de-Dome ) on the following question :
            Community of products not subject to the said
            requirements laid down in specific Community rules            Can the method of calculating the power-rating for
            referred to in Annex A ( I) to Directive 89/662/EEC           administrative purposes of vehicles under the Circular with
            and, as regards pathogens, to Directive                       retrospective statutory force of the Secretary of State for
            90/425/EEC ( 3 ),                                             Public Works, Transport and Tourism of 28 December
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 9 . 95           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 248/9
1956 be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of                Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 1 8 July 1 995 , which was
Article 95 of the EC Treaty in relation to vehicles for which           received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1995 , for a
type-approval was given after the Treaty entered into force             preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
and before 1 January 1978 ?                                             Customs and Excise against DFDS A/S, on the following
                                                                        questions :
                                                                        on the proper interpretation of Council Directive
                                                                        77/388/EC (') on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European                    Member States relating to turnover tax ( the Sixth VAT
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union                 Directive ), and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour
                                                                        operator has its headquarters in Member State A but
                        ( Case C-259/95
                                                                        supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers
                           ( 95/C 248/ 18                               through the agency of a company in Member State B:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 ( a ) in what ( if any ) circumstances is the supply of those
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           . services by the tour operator taxable in Member
Communities on 2 August 1995 by the European                                    State B ?
Parliament, represented by Christian Pennera , Head of
Division in its Legal Service, and Peter Dyrberg, of the Legal          ( b ) in what ( if any ) circumstances can it be said that the
Service , acting as agents, with an address for service in                      tour operator 'has established [its] business' in Member
Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the European Parliament,                       State B or ' has a fixed establishment from which [it] has
Tower Building, Kirchberg.                                                      provided the services' in Member State B ?
The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                  (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( Sixth Council Directive ) of
                                                                              17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
— annul Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May                              States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
     1995 (') amending Decision No 3092/94/EC                                 added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 .
     introducing a Community system of information on                         1977, p. 1 ).
     home and leisure accidents,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Lack of legal basis :                                                   Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against the Federal Republic of
— the reference to Article 169 of the 1994 Act of Accession                                              Germany
     is inappropriate in this case because that provision does                                      ( Case C-262/95 )
     not permit legislative amendments to be made after the                                           ( 95/C 248/20 )
     entry into force of the Accession Treaty on 1 January
     1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
— Article 169 of the Act of Accession cannot permit the                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     Council unilaterally to amend and modify an act jointly             Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
     adopted by the Parliament and the Council in                       European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     accordance with Article 189b of the EC Treaty . To apply           Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     it in the manner in which the Council did in adopting the          the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 ,
     contested Decision effectively undermines the                      Kirchberg.
     paramountcy of the EC Treaty and disregards the rule
     laid down in Article 9 of the Act of Accession .                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
 (') OJ No L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p . 36 .                               ( 1 ) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                 time-limits all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                                 comply with the following Directives, in particular
                                                                                 Article 3 of each of them, the Ferderal Republic of
                                                                                 Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                         Treaty:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 18 July 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of Customs                      — Council Directive 82/176/EEC (*) of 22 March
                 and Excise against DFDS A/S                                         1982 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                                     mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis
                         ( Case C-260/95 )
                                                                                     industry,
                            ( 95/C 248/ 19 )
                                                                                 — Council Directive 83/513/EEC ( 2 ) of 26 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1983 on limit values and quality objectives for
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                               cadmium discharges,