CELEX: C1998/094/19
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-18/98)

C 94/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
ductschap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba on the                9. Is Council Decision 97/803/EC valid, having regard
following questions:                                                     to the expectations aroused by the information
                                                                         brochure (DE 76) distributed by the Commission in
                                                                         October 1993, given that, at page 16, the brochure
 1. Is the mid-term amendment of the OCT Decision on                     states that the period of validity of the Sixth OCT
     1 December 1997 by Council Decision 97/803/EC of                    Decision is now 10 (previously five) years?
     24 November 1997 (OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50)
     proportionate, more specifically the insertion of
     Article 108b(1) and deletion of milling' as a relevant        10. Is Article 108b, which was inserted on 1 December
     method of processing for the purposes of origin?                    1997, so unworkable that it must be deemed to be
                                                                         invalid?
 2. Is it acceptable for the restrictive consequences of
     that Council decision Ð more specifically the                  11. Does the national court have jurisdiction, in
     insertion of Article 108b(1) and deletion of milling'              circumstances such as those described in Joined Cases
     as a relevant method of processing for the purposes                 C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmar-
     of origin Ð to be (far) more serious than would have                schen and Others and subsequent cases, to adopt an
     been the case had recourse had been to safeguard                    interim measure in advance, in the event of an
     measures pursuant to Article 109 of the OCT                         imminent breach of Community law by a non-
     Decision?                                                           Community enforcement body designated by
                                                                         Community law, in order to prevent that breach?
 3. Is it compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular
     Part IV thereof, for a Council decision of the kind            12. On the assumption that the answer to Question 11 is
     referred to in the second paragraph of Article 136 of               in the affirmative and that assessment of the
     the Treaty (in the present case, Decision 97/803/EC)                circumstances referred to in Question 11 is a matter
     to include quantitative restrictions on imports or                  for the Court of Justice, rather than the national
     measures having equivalent effect?                                  court, are the circumstances described in this
                                                                         judgment at points 3.9 to 3.11 inclusive such as to
                                                                         justify a measure of the kind referred to in
 4. Is the answer to that question different:                            Question 11?
     (a) if those restrictions or measures are in the form
         of tariff quotas or limitations to the provisions
         relating to origin or a combination of the two,
         or
                                                                    Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
     (b) if the provisions in question comprise safeguard
                                                                    the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         measures or not?
                                                                                          (Case C-18/98)
 5. Does it follow from the EC Treaty, in particular                                       (98/C 94/19)
     Part IV thereof, that for the purposes of the second
     paragraph of Article 136, the experience acquired Ð
     in the form of measures favourable to the OCT Ð                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
     may not subsequently be reviewed or annulled to the            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     detriment of the OCT?                                          on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities, represented by Christian Tufvesson and Eric
                                                                    Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
 6. If that is indeed the case, are the Council decisions at        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     issue therefore void and can individuals then rely on          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.
     that in proceedings before the national court?
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
 7. To what extent must the OCT Decision (Council
     Decision 91/482/EEC (OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1);
     corrigendum (OJ L 15, 23.1.1993, p. 33)) be deemed             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     to apply without amendment during the 10-year                      or     communicate,    the   laws,     regulations   or
     period referred to in Article 240(1) thereof, given that           administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     the Council did not amend that Decision before the                 Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on
     expiry of the first (period of) five years referred to in          investment services in the securities field (1), the
     Article 240(3) thereof?                                            Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        under the EC Treaty, and
 8. Is the Council's amending Decision (97/803/EC)
     contrary to Article 133(1) of the EC Treaty?                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that body of
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                     21 January 1998 in the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against
                                                                                Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-Umgebung
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                                          (Case C-20/98)
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
addressed to them into their domestic law before the                                            (98/C 94/21)
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
expired on 1 July 1995 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( ) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
 1                                                                      European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Ver-
                                                                        waltungssenat     (Independent     Administrative     Board)
                                                                        Salzburg of 21 January 1998, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Karl-Heinz Meinert against Bezirkshauptmann-
                                                                        schaft (District Administrative Authority) Salzburg-Umge-
                                                                        bung on the following question:
Action brought on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-19/98)
                                                                        Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
                          (98/C 94/20)                                  freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
                                                                        of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
                                                                        preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                      of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
on 23 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                    abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson and Eric                slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
Gippini Fournier, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,               regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, 254, Wagner Centre.                            distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                        calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
     or    communicate,         the    laws,    regulations    or
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
     1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to insurance against civil liability in            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep,
     respect of the use of motor vehicles (1), the Kingdom              Ghent, by judgment of 15 January 1998, in the case of the
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under                Openbaar Ministerie v. Jean Claude Becu, Annie Verweire,
     Article 1(4)(2) thereof and the EC Treaty,                                        NV Smeg and NV Adia Interim
                                                                                              (Case C-22/98)
Ð declare that, by not answering the letters of
     22 February and 10 October 1994 or the letter of                                           (98/C 94/22)
     formal notice of 14 February 1996, the Kingdom of
     Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 European Communities by judgment of 15 January 1998
                                                                        of the Hof van Beroep (Court of Appeal), Ghent, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 28 January 1998,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Openbaar
                                                                        Ministerie (Public Prosecutor's Department) v. Jean
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                    Claude Becu, Annie Verweire, NV Smeg and NV Adia
those relied on in Case C-18/98 (2); the time limit for                 Interim, on the following questions:
transposition expired on 31 December 1987.
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                           1. As Community law now stands, can those subject to
(2) See page 10 of this Official Journal.                                   it, be they natural or legal persons, acquire rights
                                                                            under Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
                                                                            with Articles 7, 85 and 86 thereof, which Member