CELEX: C2003/146/54
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-177/03: Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French Republic by the Commission of the European Communities

C 146/32               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                  1.    a.    Is Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003                               No 1182/71 ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for                                period expressed in weeks such as that laid down by
                Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron                                     Article 50a of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) ends
                                                                                     with the expiry of whichever day in the last week is
                          (Case C-170/03)                                            the same day of the week as the day following the
                                                                                     day on which the slaughter took place?
                          (2003/C 146/52)
                                                                               b.    Is a Member State free, when applying Article 50a
                                                                                     of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, to establish the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               time at which a premium application has been
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                                lodged pursuant to national rules of procedure
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 11 April 2003,                            which apply within the national legal system of that
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a                               Member State to comparable, national periods for
preliminary ruling in the appeal in cassation by the State                           making applications?
Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron on the following
questions:
                                                                               c.    If not, must Article 50a of Regulation (EEC)
1.    Must a car which is made available to a natural person by                      No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that a
      his employer and is used by him for both business and                          premium application has been ‘lodged’ in due time
      private purposes be regarded as personal property within                       if it can be shown to have been posted prior to the
      the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     expiry of the three-week period and to have been
      No 918/83 (1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community                          received by the competent authority at such a time
      system of reliefs from customs duty?                                           that it could have communicated the relevant data
                                                                                     to the Commission on the same day as would have
2.    Must Article 3(a) of that regulation requiring property to                     been the case had the premium application been
      have been in the possession of the person concerned at                         received by the competent authority within that
      least six months before the date on which he gave up his                       period?
      normal place of residence in the country of origin be
      interpreted as meaning that the person concerned who               2.    Is Article 50a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 valid in
      has had property made available to him, albeit free of                   so far as it prevents applicants from receiving the full
      charge, in the context of his employment by the owner                    amount of the premium in respect of each occasion on
      of the property in question, is to be deemed to be in                    which the period for making applications is exceeded,
      possession of the property for the purposes of the                       irrespective of the way in which and extent to which this
      abovementioned provision?                                                is done?
3.    Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2 that
      during the whole period of six months the person
      concerned had the right to buy the car?                            (1 ) OJ L 124 of 8.6.1971, p. 1.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 20.
( 1) OJ L 105 [1983], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap                  Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French
Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of ‘firma               Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
       Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en Vlees                                                       ties
                          (Case C-171/03)
                                                                                                   (Case C-177/03)
                          (2003/C 146/53)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 146/54)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 2 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April
between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the name of ‘firma Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en                represented by Jürgen Grunwald and Bruno Stromsky, acting
Vlees on the following questions:                                        as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 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’.