CELEX: C2002/084/72
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-459/01: Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     partially annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance
      of the European Communities of 19 September 2001 in              Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
      Case T-336/999, served on 1 October 2001;                        provides that a directive is binding, as to the result to be
                                                                       achieved, on the Member State to which it is addressed, entails
      annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the           an obligation on the Member States to adhere to the time-
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of               limits for implementation laid down in directives. That time-
      21 September 1999 in Case R 71/1999-3 relating to                limit expired on 1 July 2000 before the Italian Republic had
      Community trade mark application number 703 231;                 taken the necessary measures to comply with the directive
                                                                       which is the subject of the Commission’s claims.
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-
The same as in Case C-456/01P.                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
(1) Not yet published in the court reports.                                                     (Case C-459/01)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 84/72)
                                                                       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 29 November 2001
Action brought on 29 November 2001 by the Com-                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                by Christopher Docksey and Karen Banks, acting as agents,
                              Republic                                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-458/01)
                                                                       The Applicant requests that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 84/71)
                                                                       1.    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             European Parliament and Council Directive 95/46/EC of
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                24 October 1995 concerning the protection of individ-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-                    uals with regard to the processing of personal data and
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      on the free movement of such data (1) and European
represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Arnaud Bordes, acting as                Parliament and Council Directive 97/66/EC of 15 Decem-
Agents.                                                                      ber 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and
                                                                             the protection of privacy in the telecommunications
                                                                             sector (2), or, in any event, by failing to inform the
                                                                             Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  its obligations under the said Directives, and
—     declare that by failing to adopt within the prescribed           2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
      period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/90/EC
      of 15 November 1999 amending Directive 90/539/EEC
      on animal health conditions governing intra-Community
      trade in and imports from third countries of poultry and         Pleas in law and main arguments
      hatching eggs the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/42               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the               and for certain simplifications of that procedure (1), the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period               third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation
has expired without Ireland having enacted the provisions                   (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the                  the implementation of the Community transit procedure
conclusions of the Commission.                                              and for certain simplifications of that procedure (2) and
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Commission
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.                                         down provisions for the implementation of Council
(2) OJ L 024, 30.1.1998, p. 1.                                              Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
                                                                            munity Customs Code (3) and under Articles 2 and 9 to
                                                                            11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89
                                                                            of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC,
                                                                            Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own
                                                                            resources (4);
Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Com-                        (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
mission of the European Communities against the
                 Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-460/01)
                                                                      —     Infringement of the second sentence of the second
                          (2002/C 84/73)                                    subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1062/87,
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Regulation
                                                                            No 1214/92 and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
                                                                            Regulation No 2454/93 (the regulation implementing the
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                Community        Customs      Code,     hereinafter     ‘the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  implementing regulation’): Article 96 of Regulation
28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European                          No 2913/92 (5) (the Community Customs Code, herein-
Communities, represented by H.M.H. Speyart and G. Wilms,                    after ‘the CCC’) and Articles 356 and 379 of the
acting as Agents.                                                           implementing regulation lay down mandatory time-limits
                                                                            for the acts to be performed by the declarant and the
                                                                            offices of departures and destination in the context of an
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 external Community transit procedure, in particular
                                                                            where a consignment covered by that transit procedure
(1) declare that, by having, between 1 January 1991 and                     is not presented in good time to the office of destination.
     31 December 1995:                                                      The Netherlands and the Commission are in disagreement
                                                                            concerning the correct application of the period of three
     —     failed, where the declarant in an external Com-                  months which starts to run on the day of notification
           munity transit procedure has not, within three                   of non-discharge (Article 379(2) of the implementing
           months from notification by the customs office                   regulation and analogous previous provisions). That time-
           of departure that the consignment has not been                   limit is primarily binding on the declarant, since he is
           presented at the customs office of destination,                  required within that period to furnish proof of the
           furnished proof of the regularity of the transit                 regularity of the transit operation concerned. However,
           operation concerned — at the latest on the third day             that time-limit is also binding on the Member State in
           following the expiry of that time-limit, to take steps           which the customs office of departure is located, inas-
           to enter in the accounts and recover the customs                 much as it follows from the penultimate sentence of
           debt and other charges involved, or by having done               Article 317(2) of the implementing regulation that where,
           so later than provided for by Regulation (EEC,                   following the expiry of that time-limit, proof has not
           Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June                     been furnished by the declarant, the Member State
           1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,                concerned is required to take prompt steps to recover the
           dates and time limits (OJ, English Special Edition               customs debt in question. On the first day of the fourth
           1971 (II), p. 354);                                              month after notification of non-discharge, the office of
                                                                            departure has available to it all the particulars necessary
     —     failed promptly to make available to the Com-                    in order to calculate the customs debt in question
           mission the own resources relating thereto; and                  (Article 217(1) and the opening wording and subpara-
                                                                            graph (a) of 218(3) of the CCC) and to identify the debtor
     —     refused to pay the default interest connected there-             concerned — in this case, the declarant (opening wording
           with,                                                            and subparagraph (b) of 218(3) of the CCC). Under
                                                                            Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC, the debt must then be
     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                entered in the accounts within two days or, in certain
     obligations under the second sentence of the second                    circumstances, within 14 days. Consequently, subject to
     subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation                 possible extension of the time-limit pursuant to
     (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for                    Article 219 of the CCC, the Member State has no
     the implementation of the Community transit procedure                  discretion enabling it to decide at what point in time it