CELEX: C2000/233/45
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-248/00: Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/23
—     The Court of First Instance further failed to consider the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      question as to where the appellant maintained his family
      residence during the relevant period.
                                                                       —      Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions
                                                                              contained in Articles 78(2) and 120(1) of the Regulations
                                                                              on Port Authorities Registration, relating to the registra-
                                                                              tion of vessels and the right to fly the Portuguese
                                                                              flag, reserving that right to Portuguese nationals, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                              Article 12 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                              amendment, Article 43 EC);
(Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
   Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress                 —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-243/00)
                         (2000/C 233/43)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       It is apparent from the wording of the abovementioned articles
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                       of the Regulamento Geral das Capitanias (General Regulation
Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                       of the Port Authorities — RGC) that the right to fly the
Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       Portuguese flag is granted only to vessels of Portuguese
of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                                                                       nationality, a conditio sine qua non for registration of those
Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
                                                                       same vessels. Although Article 4(1) of Decreto-Lei (decree-law)
                                                                       No 214/86 repeals ‘all statutory provisions which, directly or
‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United             indirectly, limit or condition the right of establishment on
Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework                  grounds of the nationality of the investor or undertaking
Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,                 concerned’, since that decree-law concerns the right of
required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in        establishment in general, it does not contain any provisions
relation to children under the specified age born or adopted           relating to the granting of the right to fly the national flag.
before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the         Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic itself acknowledges that
national law of Member States or only to children born or              the provisions of the RGC at issue is inadequate, so that it is to
adopted on or after that date.’                                        be suspended pending adoption of new legislation.
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
    ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
(2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      the European Communities against the French Republic
                              Republic
                         (Case C-247/00)                                                        (Case C-248/00)
                         (2000/C 233/44)
                                                                                                (2000/C 233/45)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities                     An action against the French Republic was brought before the
represented by Thomas Van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Ana                 Court of Justice on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Maria Alves, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an           European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid, of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                             Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
                                                                          Article 12 prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the               nationality. Article 49 EC, for its part, lays down the principle
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-              of freedom to provide services, according to which, an
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with               economic operator established in one Member State must be
      Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998                   able to pursue his activities in another Member State, without
      amending       Directives       80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,        his nationality giving rise to discrimination by comparison
      91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and repe-                 with the nationals of the second Member State. However,
      aling Directive 92/87/EEC (1), the French Republic has              Article 6 of Portaria (order) No 17568 of 6 February 1960
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of            requires ‘foreign entities or individuals’ to obtain a licence for
      Directive 98/67/EC;                                                 the taking of aerial photographs or film. The Portuguese
                                                                          authorities confirm that they do apply the legislation at issue,
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           considering such restrictions to be necessary, not on grounds
                                                                          of the nationality of the entity which applies for authorisation
                                                                          or is to use such photographs, but on the basis of the need to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           protect the strategic interests of national defence. However,
                                                                          mere interpretation by the Portuguese administration which
                                                                          makes more flexible the provisions of the aforementioned
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  order, with a view to making the conditions laid down for
put forward in Case C-236/00 (2); the period prescribed for               foreigners similar to those laid down for nationals, is not
transposition expired on 31 December 1998.                                sufficient to cure the incompatibility.
(1) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
(2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
                                                                          tário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção by
                                                                          order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against
                                                                          the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e
                                                                                     Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa
Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                                 (Case C-251/00)
                              Republic
                                                                                                   (2000/C 233/47)
                         (Case C-250/00)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2000/C 233/46)                                  European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributário de
                                                                          1.a Instância de Lisboa 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção (Second Division
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before              — First Chamber of the Fiscal Court of First Instance of Lisbon)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June               of 13 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Maria Patakia and Miguel França, of its Legal              Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                 da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              das Alfândegas de Lisboa. The Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instân-
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  cia de Lisboa, 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção, asks the Court of Justice
                                                                          to rule on: (a) the interpretation of Article 201(3) of the
                                                                          Community Customs Code (CCC), established by Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992; (b) the
                                                                          validity of the Commission’s decision, in order to be able to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which             answer the following questions:
      only authorises Community nationals to take aerial
      photographs or film in exceptional and duly justified               1.    Is it permissible to require payment of the customs debt
      cases, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12             by importers who, acting in good faith and with due care,
      and 49 EC;                                                                processed their declarations, over a number of years,
                                                                                unaware of any irregularities which were known to either
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           the Turkish or Community authorities?