Case C-39/01: Action brought on 29 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution

C 79/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

2.

Irrespective of the reply to the preceding question, does
the allocation to such a public undertaking of a significant
proportion of the proceeds from the charge amount to
abuse of a dominant position as a result of a State
legislative measure and is it thus contrary to Article 86 in
conjunction with Article 90 of the Treaty?

therefore justify,

3. May the allocation to such an undertaking of a significant
proportion of the abovementioned charge be defined as
State aid, within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty,
the
and does it
Commission is either not notified or adopts a decision
finding the aid to be incompatible with the common
market, pursuant to Article 93, the exercise by national
courts of their powers — in accordance with the case-law
of the Court of Justice — to ensure disapplication of
illegal and/or incompatible aid?

in the event

that

4. Does the appropriation to the abovementioned public
undertaking, ab origine, of a significant proportion of the
proceeds from a State charge levied for or upon the
unloading or loading of goods at ports, without such
payment being reciprocated by any services rendered by
the AMM itself, constitute a charge having an effect
equivalent to a customs duty on imports (prohibited by
Articles 12 and 13 of the Treaty), or an internal taxation
imposed on products of other Member States in excess of
that imposed on similar domestic products (Article 95),
or a barrier to imports, prohibited by Article 30?

5.

In the event that the national provisions are in conflict
with Community law, do the factors set out in the
foregoing paragraphs, considered individually, affect the
charge as a whole or only the portion allocated to the
AMM?

Action brought on 29 January 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-39/01)

(2001/C 79/37)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
office of Mr Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal
Service, at the Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996
concerning integral pollution prevention and control(1)
or in any event by failing to inform the Commission
thereof,
its
obligations under that Directive, and

the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 30 October 1999 without the United Kingdom
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

Action brought on 1 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-41/01)

(2001/C 79/38)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 February 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, of the Legal Service of the
Commission of the European Communities, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la
Cruz, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
Communities, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by having, contrary to the judgment of the
Court of Justice of 22 October 1998 in Case C-301/95 (1),
excluded in advance from the environmental
impact
assessment requirement whole classes of projects listed
in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment, the Federal
Republic of Germany has failed to comply with its
obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;