You are on page 1of 2

C 112/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.

2003

Pleas in law and main arguments Grenoble (Commercial Chamber) of 20 February 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 13 March 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Société Financière & Industriel-
le du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against
The Swedish provisions on compulsory prior notification
Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge,
(announcement by the national food administration (Livsmed-
and Others on the following question:
elsverket) of 25 December 1998 — SLV FS 1998:39) are
inconsistent with the purpose of Directive 89/662/EEC in so
far as they do not recognise other checks carried out in other
Member States. It is true that spot checks are allowed under May the insured beneficiary of a contract of insurance
Directive 89/662/EEC but the possibility of carrying out spot
concluded on its behalf between a policyholder (subscribed)
checks cannot be used by a Member State to monitor the and an insurer who are domiciled in the same Member State,
effectiveness of the observance by other Member States of be made subject to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the
another regulatory system. Article 3 of Directive 89/662/EEC
courts of that State, when it has not personally approved the
provides not only for official veterinary checks on production clause, when the damage occurred in another Member State
establishments but also for regular checks to be carried out by
and when it has also applied for insurers domiciled in the same
the competent authorities on establishments to ensure that the State to be joined as parties to proceedings before a court of
products comply with the Community requirements or the that State?
requirements of the Member State of destination. Furthermore,
under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/662 goods cannot
circulate freely if they are not marked in a certain manner and
accompanied by the necessary documentation.

The Swedish Government has submitted that the notification


requirement is necessary to ensure observance of the special
salmonella guarantees which apply on importation of certain
animal products into Sweden. In that connection, the Com-
mission points out that Directive 89/662/EEC offers a Member
State ample opportunity to take steps in the event that Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of
breaches of Community rules are discovered when samples are the European Communities against the French Republic
taken. For instance, Article 8 of the Directive lays down the
procedure to be applied if breaches are discovered by the
Member State of destination. (Case C-113/03)

( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13. (2003/C 112/27)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the


Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Ch. Giolitto and M. Shotter, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel,
Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003
in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux,
formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société
The applicant claims that the Court should :
AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and
Others
— Declare that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-
geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at
(Case C-112/03) the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/
EC ( 1), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of
(2003/C 112/26) 24 September 1998 with regard to operator number
portability and carrier pre-selection ( 2), the French Repub-
lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel, — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
10.5.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/17

Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
of Germany
France was required to transpose and apply the provision
referred to in the application with effect from 1 January 2000. (Case C-118/03)
It appears from the replies submitted of the French authorities
that, with the exception of numbers which are free of (2003/C 112/29)
charge (‘freephone numbers’) and of shared-cost numbers, the
remaining non-geographic numbers are not covered by the
measures which have been established.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
( 1) Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ties on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, legal advisor, and
regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through Hans Støvlbæk, of its legal service, with an address for service
application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) in Luxembourg.
— OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32.
( 2) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations


and administrative provisions necessary to implement
Commission Directive 2000/37/EC ( 1) of 5 June 2000
amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council
Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
products or by failing to inform the Commission of those
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
Genova — Prima sezione civile by order of that Court of fulfil its obligations under that directive;
10 March 2003 in the civil proceedings brought by
Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero dell’Ambiente and
2. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-115/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments

(2003/C 112/28) The period for implementing the directive expired on 5 Decem-
ber 2001.

(1 ) OJ L 139, 10.6.2000, p. 25.


Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova
— Prima sezione civile (Genoa District Court, First Civil
Chamber) of 10 March 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 17 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the civil
proceedings brought by Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero
dell’Ambiente and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri on the
following question: Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

Does the obligation under Article 4 of Directive 91/689/ (Case C-119/03)


EEC ( 1) apply to all producers of hazardous waste (including
dental surgeons’ practices) or merely to producers of hazardous
(2003/C 112/30)
waste whose business is organised in the form of an undertak-
ing or institution?

An action against the French Republic was brought before the


( 1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20. Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.