You are on page 1of 2


2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/33

The applicant claims that the Court should: — Incorrect transposition of Article 8 of the directive: the
national provisions on informing the population or the
information to be given in the event of a radiological
— declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to emergency do not make binding provision for indicating
comply with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Council which authorities are responsible for applying the
Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on measures envisaged by the directive.
informing the general public about health protection
measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event
of a radiological emergency (1), the French Republic has (1 ) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the European
Parliament and the Council of the European Union
— Incorrect transposition of Article 2 of the directive: the
transposition measures taken concerned only some of the
situations referred to in that article. The given definition (Case C-178/03)
of ‘radiological emergency’ was not transposed, and the
transposition measures do not cover the transport and
storage of nuclear fuels or radioactive wastes, the manu- (2003/C 146/55)
facture, use, storage, disposal and transport of radioiso-
topes for agricultural, industrial, medical and related
scientific and research purposes, or the use of radioiso-
topes for power generation in space vehicles. In addition,
the measures concern only risks connected with instal- An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
lations in French territory and not those connected with the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
installations outside that territory. of the European Communities on 24 April 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
G. zur Hausen, L. Ström and E. Righini, acting as agents, with
— Incorrect transposition of Article 3 of the directive: the an address for service in Luxembourg.
transposition measures taken contain no definition of the
terms ‘significant release of radioactive material’ and
‘abnormal levels of radioactivity which are likely to be The Applicant claims that the Court should:
detrimental to public health’.
— annul Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 (1) of the European
— Incorrect transposition of Article 5 of the directive: as Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003
already indicated in relation to the transposition of concerning the export and import of dangerous chemi-
Article 2 of the directive, the transposition measures as cals;
regards informing the population do not cover all
the installations and all the activities envisaged by the — declare that the effects of the Regulation shall remain in
directive. force until the Council has adopted a new regulation;

— Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: the — order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
the costs.
national provisions on informing the population in the
event of a radiological emergency do not require that the
population be informed without delay.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Incorrect transposition of Article 7 of the directive: the
measures referred to in the directive for informing
persons likely to be involved in the organisation of
assistance in the event of a radiological emergency, for The PIC Regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on
example, are reproduced only in a circular, which does the Prior Informed Consent procedure for certain Hazardous
not comply with the requirements for legal certainty Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, hereinafter
imposed by the Court’s case-law. the ‘PIC Convention’.
C 146/34 EN Official Journal of the European Union 21.6.2003

The PIC Convention establishes the principle that import and — order the defendant to pay the costs.
export of a chemical covered by it can only take place with the
prior informed consent of the importing Party. The PIC
Convention establishes a procedure as a means to formally
obtain and disseminate the decisions of importing Parties and Pleas in law and main arguments
to ensure compliance with these decisions by the exporting
Parties, called the ‘PIC procedure’.
The action is directed against the contested decision in so far
as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of
EUR 26 446 505,00 incurred by the Federal Republic of
The Commission considers that the PIC Regulation falls within Germany in respect of the arable crops sector in Brandenburg
the scope of the Community’s common commercial policy. for crop years 1999 and 2000 and imputes it to the Federal
The Regulation should therefore, as proposed by the Com- Republic of Germany. That amount represents a flat-rate
mission, have been adopted as a Council Regulation based on correction of 5 % of the expenditure notified for the Land of
Article 133 EC and not as a European Parliament and Council Brandenburg for crop years 1999 and 2000 in the arable crops
Regulation based on Article 175(1) EC, which concerns sector.
measures adopted in the field of the Community’s environmen-
tal policy. The Commission maintains that the choice by the
European Parliament and the Council of the legal basis for the In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
adoption of the PIC Regulation is erroneous and the act in decision was adopted in breach of procedural rules and general
question is therefore illegal and should be annulled. principles of Community law. The Commission’s inspection
findings and conclusions, which formed the basis of the
decision, were incorrect in a number of material factual
( 1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1. respects and, moreover, were based on a misinterpretation of
law. A flat-rate imputation of 5 % is therefore completely
illegal. That follows from the following seven pleas in law:

— Procedural errors. The complaints subsequently made by

the Commission:

— ‘no reliable or current data on the parcels in the

Allgemeines Liegenschaftsbuch (General Register of
Real Property) (ALB)’ (Under Paragraph 12 of the
Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic Gesetz über die Landesvermessung und das Liegen-
of Germany against the Commission of the European schaftskataster in Brandenburg (Law on Topo-
Communities graphic Survey and the Land Register in Branden-
burg — VermLiegG), the ALB constitutes, together
with the real property map and real property data,
(Case C-183/03) the cadastre of the Land of Brandenburg. It is held
on computer),
(2003/C 146/56) — ‘double applications not detectable’,

— ‘there is hardly any or no connection between the

parcels entered in the land register and those in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- agricultural use’ and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic of — ‘it was not always possible to check and measure the
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat, specified agricultural parcels on the basis of, for
Moritz Lumma, Regierungsdirektor, and Annette Tiemann, example, maps or aerial photographs, since the
Regierungsrätin z. A., Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurhein- holdings do not enclose with their applications
dorfer Straße 108, D-53117 Bonn. any maps or sketches of the specified agricultural

were not communicated to the German authorities in due

The applicant claims that the Court should: time. Breach of the procedure for the clearance of the
accounts (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/
— annul Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February 1999 ( 1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/
2003 — C(2003) 500 final — excluding from Com- 95 ( 2) and breaches of the principles of the right to a fair
munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the hearing and proper administration are therefore alleged.
Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund — Reliability of the land identification system. In its second
(EAGGF) in so far as an amount of EUR 26 446 500,00 plea in law, the Federal Government defends itself against
is excluded from Community financing and imputed to the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the
the Federal Republic of Germany and reliability of the identification system.