CELEX: C2002/247/10
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-293/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of Jersey, Samedi Division, by order of that court dated 5 August 2002, in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and 2) Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners: 1) Top Produce Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd

12.10.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/5
4.    Are the provisions of Article 28 and 30 EC on the free             Pleas in law and main arguments
      movement of goods, applicable to Norway on the basis
      of Articles 8 to 16 of the European Economic Area
      Agreement (EEA Agreement), to be interpreted, with                 According to the Commission, current Greek legislation is not
      reference to the provisions contained in Council Decision          consistent with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92. The fact that
      2000/766/EC and Commission Decision 2001/9 cited in                the regulation is of direct application and its provisions prevail
      question (1) above, as meaning that a Member State may             over national law does not release Member States from the
      not impose a requirement of zero error in a situation              obligation to repeal national provisions incompatible with
      such as that described in questions (1) and (2) above?             Community law.
( 1) OJ L 306 of 7.12.2000, p. 32.                                       As regards the classification of the ports of the Peloponnese as
( 2) OJ L 2 of 5.1.2001, p. 32.                                          island ports, the Commission points out that the Peloponnese
( 3) OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8.                                        is separated from the rest of Greece by a man-made canal and
                                                                         is linked by road and rail with the rest of the country. It
                                                                         therefore accords with common sense, and also with the case-
                                                                         law of the Court of Justice (see Joined Cases C-15/98 and
                                                                         C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR
                                                                         I-8855, paragraph 55), for the Peloponnese to be considered
                                                                         part of mainland Greece.
Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         Finally, as regards island cabotage, the Commission submits
                                                                         that, while host State rules apply for regulating manning-
                          (Case C-288/02)                                related issues, those rules must not, however, in any event be
                                                                         contrary to Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
                          (2002/C 247/09)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 August
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and M. Patakia, Legal Advisers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. The applicant
claims that the Court should declare that by:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
                                                                         Jersey, Samedi Division, by order of that court dated
—     expressly conferring the right to carry passengers between         5 August 2002, in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
      Greek mainland ports solely upon Greek passenger ships             Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and
      and the right to carry out tours with passenger ships of a         2) Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners:
      gross tonnage exceeding 650 gt by way of island cabotage                 1) Top Produce Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd
      solely upon Greek passenger ships,
—     requiring in the case of Community ships entered in a                                        (Case C-293/02)
      second or international register a certificate from the
      competent authority of the flag State declaring that that                                    (2002/C 247/10)
      ship is allowed to provide cabotage services,
—     considering that the Peloponnese constitues an island,
      and                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of
—     applying to Community tankers, freighters, passenger               Jersey, Samedi Division, dated 5 August 2002, which was
      ships and tourist ships, and to cruise ships which carry           received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2002, for a
      out sea tours by way of island cabotage its rules as host          preliminary ruling in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
      State relating to manning conditions, and requiring the            Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and 2) Jersey
      shipowners to submit an application to the competent               Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners: 1) Top Produce
      authorities for measurement of the gross tonnage of the            Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd, on the following questions:
      ship, in order for the Greek authorities to calculate the
      basic composition of the crew,                                     1.     Is a statutory Scheme such as that which regulates the
                                                                                export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to
Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92                      quantitative restrictions on exports, contrary to Article 29
of 7 December 1992 (1) applying the principle of freedom to                     EC, by reason of the fact that potatoes sent directly from
provide services to maritime transport within Member States                     Jersey to the United Kingdom may travel via another
(maritime cabotage).                                                            Member State but without leaving the carrying vessel?
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/6                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.10.2002
2.    Is a statutory Scheme such as that regulating the export           Furthermore, the Italian Government argues that, even if the
      of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to be                regulation were to be considered ‘substantive’, the fact that the
      considered incompatible with Articles 23, 25 and 28-29             Italian Government is not responsible for the withdrawal of
      EC in so far as it may affect trade between that island and        the amount of alcohol as a result of a judicial decision should
      the United Kingdom (together with Guernsey and the Isle            lead to the decision itself being considered a ‘case of force
      of Man) or may entail the imposition of charges arising            majeure’ which justifies replacing the product which was
      in connection with such trade?                                     withdrawn. In that case, precisely because the body responsible
                                                                         for payment is not at fault, there has been no failure to fulfil
                                                                         the obligation to assign the alcohol to the abovementioned
                                                                         stock nor, a fortiori, has their been any damage to the
                                                                         Community, whose sole interest is that Community stocks be
                                                                         maintained.
                                                                         Olive oil production aid
Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The flat-rate financial correction of 2 % of the expenditure
                         (Case C-297/02)                                 declared by Italy in respect of October 1997 to October 1998
                                                                         amounting in all to EUR 22 678 386,83 was applied as a
                                                                         result of the finding that the Italian authorities’ checks and
                                                                         inspections were inadequate. The finding was based on the
                         (2002/C 247/11)
                                                                         following three factors:
                                                                         —     belated notification of data relating to mill production by
                                                                               the paying agency AIMA (Azienda di Stato per gli
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      interventi nel mercato agricolo) to the inspection body
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   AGECONTROL;
Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato.                                 —     lack of coordination of the various inspections and checks
                                                                               between the paying agency and the inspection body;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     inadequate analysis and assessment of the available
                                                                               information on risk factors.
—     annul decision C(2002) 2263 (1) def. of 28 July 2002 in
      so far as it provides with regard to Italy: — B.4.1. -ITALY
      — Investigation No 1999 (666) on alcohol correction to             By way of answer to the Commission’s criticisms, the Italian
      budget post 1622 in respect of 1998 financial year of              Government would submit the following:
      EUR — 4 085 724,85; — B.8.1. Olive oil production aid
      — Italy financial correction of EUR — 22 678 386,33
      for the financial years 1997, 1998 and 1999
                                                                         (a)   Coordination between AIMA and AGECONTROL
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The Agency has always sought to ask AIMA timeously
                                                                         and with the necessary precision for all the appropriate
The Commission takes the view that the proper application of             computerised data in order to allow it to carry out the checks
Regulation (EEC) No 3597/90 (2) requires that wherever there             required by the work schedules for each financial year, issuing
is stock missing in Community stocks the budget post must                reminders for such information when it was late in providing
automatically be adjusted without inquiring into the reasons             it. Moreover, AIMA has for some years entered formal
for the shortfall, the Member State being held objectively liable.       memoranda of understanding with the Agency with the aim
According to the Italian Government, such an interpretation              of ensuring a regular and orderly exchange of computerised
must be rejected because it does not conform with legal                  information with AGECONTROL. The claim that there was no
reasoning, or with the letter and spirit of the provision.               coordination is therefore unfounded.