CELEX: C2003/146/55
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-178/03: Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

21.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     Incorrect transposition of Article 8 of the directive: the
                                                                                 national provisions on informing the population or the
                                                                                 information to be given in the event of a radiological
—     declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to                      emergency do not make binding provision for indicating
      comply with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Council                        which authorities are responsible for applying the
      Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on                            measures envisaged by the directive.
      informing the general public about health protection
      measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event
      of a radiological emergency (1), the French Republic has             (1 ) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the European
                                                                                Parliament and the Council of the European Union
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 2 of the directive: the
      transposition measures taken concerned only some of the
      situations referred to in that article. The given definition                                  (Case C-178/03)
      of ‘radiological emergency’ was not transposed, and the
      transposition measures do not cover the transport and
      storage of nuclear fuels or radioactive wastes, the manu-                                     (2003/C 146/55)
      facture, use, storage, disposal and transport of radioiso-
      topes for agricultural, industrial, medical and related
      scientific and research purposes, or the use of radioiso-
      topes for power generation in space vehicles. In addition,
      the measures concern only risks connected with instal-               An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      lations in French territory and not those connected with             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      installations outside that territory.                                of the European Communities on 24 April 2003 by the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                           G. zur Hausen, L. Ström and E. Righini, acting as agents, with
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3 of the directive: the           an address for service in Luxembourg.
      transposition measures taken contain no definition of the
      terms ‘significant release of radioactive material’ and
      ‘abnormal levels of radioactivity which are likely to be             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      detrimental to public health’.
                                                                           —     annul Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 (1) of the European
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 5 of the directive: as                  Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003
      already indicated in relation to the transposition of                      concerning the export and import of dangerous chemi-
      Article 2 of the directive, the transposition measures as                  cals;
      regards informing the population do not cover all
      the installations and all the activities envisaged by the            —     declare that the effects of the Regulation shall remain in
      directive.                                                                 force until the Council has adopted a new regulation;
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: the           —     order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
                                                                                 the costs.
      national provisions on informing the population in the
      event of a radiological emergency do not require that the
      population be informed without delay.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 7 of the directive: the
      measures referred to in the directive for informing
      persons likely to be involved in the organisation of
      assistance in the event of a radiological emergency, for             The PIC Regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on
      example, are reproduced only in a circular, which does               the Prior Informed Consent procedure for certain Hazardous
      not comply with the requirements for legal certainty                 Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, hereinafter
      imposed by the Court’s case-law.                                     the ‘PIC Convention’.
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.6.2003
The PIC Convention establishes the principle that import and           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
export of a chemical covered by it can only take place with the
prior informed consent of the importing Party. The PIC
Convention establishes a procedure as a means to formally
obtain and disseminate the decisions of importing Parties and          Pleas in law and main arguments
to ensure compliance with these decisions by the exporting
Parties, called the ‘PIC procedure’.
                                                                       The action is directed against the contested decision in so far
                                                                       as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of
                                                                       EUR 26 446 505,00 incurred by the Federal Republic of
The Commission considers that the PIC Regulation falls within          Germany in respect of the arable crops sector in Brandenburg
the scope of the Community’s common commercial policy.                 for crop years 1999 and 2000 and imputes it to the Federal
The Regulation should therefore, as proposed by the Com-               Republic of Germany. That amount represents a flat-rate
mission, have been adopted as a Council Regulation based on            correction of 5 % of the expenditure notified for the Land of
Article 133 EC and not as a European Parliament and Council            Brandenburg for crop years 1999 and 2000 in the arable crops
Regulation based on Article 175(1) EC, which concerns                  sector.
measures adopted in the field of the Community’s environmen-
tal policy. The Commission maintains that the choice by the
European Parliament and the Council of the legal basis for the         In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
adoption of the PIC Regulation is erroneous and the act in             decision was adopted in breach of procedural rules and general
question is therefore illegal and should be annulled.                  principles of Community law. The Commission’s inspection
                                                                       findings and conclusions, which formed the basis of the
                                                                       decision, were incorrect in a number of material factual
( 1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1.                                          respects and, moreover, were based on a misinterpretation of
                                                                       law. A flat-rate imputation of 5 % is therefore completely
                                                                       illegal. That follows from the following seven pleas in law:
                                                                       —     Procedural errors. The complaints subsequently made by
                                                                             the Commission:
                                                                             —     ‘no reliable or current data on the parcels in the
                                                                                   Allgemeines Liegenschaftsbuch (General Register of
                                                                                   Real Property) (ALB)’ (Under Paragraph 12 of the
Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic                            Gesetz über die Landesvermessung und das Liegen-
of Germany against the Commission of the European                                  schaftskataster in Brandenburg (Law on Topo-
                            Communities                                            graphic Survey and the Land Register in Branden-
                                                                                   burg — VermLiegG), the ALB constitutes, together
                                                                                   with the real property map and real property data,
                          (Case C-183/03)                                          the cadastre of the Land of Brandenburg. It is held
                                                                                   on computer),
                          (2003/C 146/56)                                    —     ‘double applications not detectable’,
                                                                             —     ‘there is hardly any or no connection between the
                                                                                   parcels entered in the land register and those in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          agricultural use’ and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic of                      —     ‘it was not always possible to check and measure the
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,                      specified agricultural parcels on the basis of, for
Moritz Lumma, Regierungsdirektor, and Annette Tiemann,                             example, maps or aerial photographs, since the
Regierungsrätin z. A., Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurhein-                     holdings do not enclose with their applications
dorfer Straße 108, D-53117 Bonn.                                                   any maps or sketches of the specified agricultural
                                                                                   parcels’,
                                                                             were not communicated to the German authorities in due
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  time. Breach of the procedure for the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/
—     annul Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February                   1999 ( 1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/
      2003 — C(2003) 500 final — excluding from Com-                         95 ( 2) and breaches of the principles of the right to a fair
      munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the                   hearing and proper administration are therefore alleged.
      Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                —     Reliability of the land identification system. In its second
      (EAGGF) in so far as an amount of EUR 26 446 500,00                    plea in law, the Federal Government defends itself against
      is excluded from Community financing and imputed to                    the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the
      the Federal Republic of Germany and                                    reliability of the identification system.