Case C-85/01: Action brought on 20 February 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European standard, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bathing water, water pollution

C 134/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

— at paragraph 66: the claim for damages to make
reparation for the damage caused by the reprisals is
inadmissible in the absence of proper pre-litigation
procedure beforehand.

— at paragraph 67: the claim for compensation does
not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, in view
of the form of order sought;

— at paragraph 68: annulment of

the contested
decision is sufficient to make good the non-material
damage caused to the applicant by the uncertainty
in which the Commission left her as regards the
action it proposed to take on her request
for
its administrative
assistance and the results of
enquiry;

— at paragraph 69: the applicant has not established to
the requisite legal standard the damage caused by
having been exposed to the consequences of having
complained of sexual harassment, to which the
Commission was indifferent.

— at paragraph 70: the applicant did not adduce the
abovementioned evidence with regard either to the
conduct prior to the incident of 27 February 1997
or the incident itself;

— recognise that there was sexual harassment and that non-

material damage was caused to the appellant;

— order the defendant to pay damages together with interest

in an amount to be determined by the Court;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Breach of the obligation to state reasons:

— by simply annulling the implied rejection, the Court
of First Instance has altered the degree of seriousness
of the Commission’s failure to fulfil its obligations
after criticising the Commission at length in the
grounds of the judgment, thus leading to a regret-
table contradiction in those grounds.

— by stating, first, that the applicant did not prove that
she had in fact suffered sexual harassment and,
secondly, by acknowledging the existence of conduct
falling within the scope of sexual harassment in the
same judgment, the Court of First Instance has
contradicted itself in its grounds.

— it is at the very least contradictory to use as evidence,
in the procedure before the Court, an administrative
enquiry which was conducted in a manner which
was censured by the Court of First Instance itself,
and the results of which are challenged by the
applicant.

— it is altogether contradictory for the Court of First
Instance to make use of earlier staff reports in order
to put in question the applicant’s abilities and thus
prove that her problems at work could not be
attributed to sexual harassment. Its reasoning does
not moreover settle the question whether the failure
to reward the applicant for progress is not in fact
the result of her refusal to succumb to the pressures
of sexual harassment.

— Infringement of Community law and the relevant case-

law on new pleas in law.

— Justice denied in respect of liability.

— Infringement of the rights of the defence: the Court of
First Instance unreasonably drew inferences from an
administrative enquiry which was contested by the appli-
cant who had not been able to submit observations or be
present to hear the evidence of witnesses or of the person
accused of the conduct under investigation.

Action brought on 20 February 2001 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against

Kingdom

(Case C-85/01)

(2001/C 134/10)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to ensure that the bathing waters
in Blackpool and adjacent to Southport comply with the
limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
Directive 76/160/EEC (1), in compliance with the judg-
ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-56/90 delivered on
14 July 1993, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its
obligations under paragraph 1 of Article 228 of the EC
Treaty;

5.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/7

— order the United Kingdom to pay to the Commission of
the European Communities, into the account ‘EC own
resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 106 800 for each
day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to
comply with the judgment in Case C-56/90 from delivery
of the present judgment until the judgment in Case
C-56/90 has been complied with;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Appeal brought on 26 February 2001 by La Poste against
the judgment delivered on 14 December 2000 by the
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX),
DHL International, Federal Express International (France)
and CRIE and the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, supported by the French Republic, Chronopost SA
and La Poste

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its judgment of 14 July 1993, in Case C-56/90 (ECR 1993
p. I-4109), the Court declared that, by failing to take all the
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of the bathing
to Southport
waters in Blackpool and of
conformed to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3
of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 con-
cerning the quality of bathing water, the United Kingdom had
failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.

those adjacent

Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty requires a Member State to
take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment by the
Court which finds that it has failed to fulfil an obligation under
the Treaty.

There cannot be any doubt that, in the present case, the United
Kingdom should long since have taken all the necessary
measures to ensure that the quality of the bathing waters in
Blackpool and of those adjacent to Southport conform to
the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of the
aforementioned directive. Over six years had already passed
since the Court gave its judgment by the time the Commission
issued its reasoned opinion. At this time, six out of the nine
bathing waters in question still failed to comply with the
directive.

In accordance with Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty, the
Commission asks the Court to impose a penalty payment of
EUR 106 800 on the United Kingdom for each day’s delay in
implementing the Court’s judgment in Case C-56/90, begin-
ning from the day on which the Court gives its judgment in
the present case.

(1) of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ

L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1).

(Case C-94/01 P)

(2001/C 134/11)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL,
International, Federal Express International (France) and CRIE
and the Commission of the European Communities, supported
by the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 26 February 2001 by La Poste, represented by
H. Lehman, Avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
14 December 2000 in so far as it annuls Article 1 of
Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997
concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-
Chronopost (1) in so far as it finds that the logistical
and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its
subsidiary SFMI-Chronopost does not constitute State aid
to SFMI-Chronopost;

— order Union Française de l’Express, DHL, International,
Federal Express International and CRIE to pay the costs
incurred by La Poste in the proceedings before both the
Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Contradictory and insufficient statement of reasons

The Court of First Instance purports to apply the private
investor test, but instead its method consists in appraising
the impact of the reserved service. In requiring account
to be taken of a private undertaking with no reserved
sector, the Court of First Instance draws a comparison
between public owners and private owners with no
reserved sector but does not treat the public owner and
the private owner in the same way. A private owner with
a reserved sector would never be required to take into