You are on page 1of 1

26.4.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/19

2.2. Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be of the European Communities against the United
compared? In particular: Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(a) is the answer affected by the fact that the


ultimate consumer/patient derives limited (Case C-62/03)
financial advantage from the parallel trade and
(2003/C 101/32)
(b) is account to be taken, and to what extent, of
the interests of social insurance bodies in
cheaper medicinal products?

2.3. What other criteria and approaches are considered An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
appropriate in the present case? Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission


The Applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(a), 1(e),
(Case C-61/03)
1(f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of Council
Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste ( 1), as
(2003/C 101/31) amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991 ( 2), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of European Community;
the European Communities on 14 February 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by 2) order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
L. Ström and X. Lewis, acting as agents, with an address for Ireland to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:


Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty by failing to provide the Directive 91/156/EEC required Member States to bring into
Commission with general data relating to any plan for force such laws, regulations and administrative provisions as
the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form are necessary to comply with that directive no later than
resulting from the decommissioning operations of the 1 April 1993, and to inform the Commission forthwith.
JASON reactor; and Article 2(2) thereof provides that Member States shall commu-
nicate to the Commission the texts of the main provisions of
— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern national law that they adopt in the field governed by the
Ireland to pay the costs. directive.

Pleas in law and main arguments As a result of an assessment of the national legislation
communicated as transposing the directive the Commission
found a number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United
The Commission is of the opinion that the United Kingdom Kingdom’s transposition and concludes that Articles 1(a), 1(e),
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37 of the 1(f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14 of the directive have
Euratom Treaty to provide the Commission with general data not been correctly transposed into the United Kingdom
relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in legislation.
whatever form resulting from the decommissioning operations
of the JASON reactor, thus making it impossible for the
Commission to determine whether the implementation of (1 ) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
such a plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination (2 ) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.