Case T-303/01: Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Aragon, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), environmental protection, high-speed transport, local government, rail transport

C 44/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.2.2002

— order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
the ensuing damage, in particular those arising from the
loss of Sickness Insurance cover and other non-material
damage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission not to take action

on complaint No 1999/5330;

— order the European Commission to take the following

measures:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former official of the defendant institution, at
present retired, contests the withdrawal, with retrospective
effect, of family allowance in respect of a dependent daughter.
The contested measure is based on ‘evidence that the income
from gainful employment of [his] daughter exceeds 40 % of
the basic salary of an official in Grade D 4/1’.

In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:

— unlawfulness of the act on the ground of misuse of
powers (lack and inadequacy of reasons, erroneous
assumptions and distortion of the facts)

— infringement of Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff

Regulations

— breach of the principle of non-discrimination

— breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and

failure to protect acquired rights.

1.

2.

3.

require the Government of the Kingdom of Spain
not to implement the decision to alter the route
followed by Subsection II (Ebro river crossing) of the
Zaragoza-Lleida section of the Madrid-Barcelona-
French border high speed line, known as Solucio´ n
Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B),
declared environmentally viable by the Spanish
Council of Ministers on 25 February 1999 and
approved by way of resolution by the Secretary of
State for Infrastructure and Transport of 17 March
1999;

further require the Kingdom of Spain to ensure that
those works be carried out using the only properly
approved route adopted by resolution of the Sec-
retary of State for Town and Country Planning of
24 February 1995 as Alternativa Norte (Northern
Option); and

any other measure which in consequence of the
preceding orders may be deemed appropriate,
including a warning from the Commission to the
that enforcement measures
Spanish authorities
could be adopted in the absence of adequate com-
pliance, including infringement proceedings and/or
the withdrawal of European funding for the project.

Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento
de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-303/01)

(2002/C 44/46)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntami-
ento de Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza), Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza,
Spain), represented by Javier Arin˜ o Barcelona, lawyer.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant states that it is one of the municipal authorities
affected by the route of the High Speed Madrid-Zaragoza-
French Border railway line, for which the Spanish Government
obtained funding from the Community cohesion fund (Project
No 95/11/65/007) (1).
the Spanish administrative
Initially,
the
authorities approved the route for Subsection II of
Zaragoza-Lleida section, which opted, from the two possible
choices at the Source of the Ebro, for the ‘Northern Option’,
which did not affect the protected area of the Soto de Aguilar,
a riverside wilderness of great ecological and wildlife value
within the municipality limits of the applicant. Subsequently,
despite the report to the contrary drawn up by the competent
environmental authorities, the Spanish Government decided
to alter the route initially planned, opting for Solucio´ n Sur
Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), which not only
is the less environmentally friendly but is also the more
expensive.

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/27

On 1 December 1999, the applicant informed the Commission
of those facts, requesting it to order the Spanish Government
not to implement the decision relating to the Solucio´ n Sur
Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B) route and to opt
for the ‘Northern Alternative’, and to warn it that, if it failed to
comply, the Community assistance received was to be returned
(Complaint No 1999/5330). As a result of that complaint, the
Commission invited the Spanish Government to make its
views known and, after examining the reply — to which the
applicant has not had access, despite repeatedly requesting it
— the Commission decided to take no action on the case.

The applicant claims that, contrary to the view taken by the
Commission, the Spanish Government’s measures amount to
an infringement of Community law, namely of:

— Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the

conservation of wild birds (2);

— Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (3); and

— legislation on the use of Community funding, in particular
Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994
establishing a Cohesion Fund (4).

The applicant is of the view that, in the face of such flagrant
infringement of Community law by the Spanish authorities as
pointed out in its complaint, the Commission should have
taken steps to defend Community law and that its decision not
to take action must accordingly be annulled.

(1) OJ 1998 C 153, p. 172.
(2) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
(4) OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.

Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden
and Others against the Council of the European Union
and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-306/01)

(2002/C 44/47)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others represented
by Leif Silbersky and Thomas Olsson.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of

12 November 2001 (1);

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
2001 (2), or in the alternative declare that Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 is not
applicable;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings

in an amount to be specified later.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Three of the applicants are Swedish citizens of Somali origin
and the fourth is a non-profitmaking association registered
under Swedish law, which inter alia provides support for
refugees and has assisted with financial transactions between
residents of Sweden and residents of Somalia.

On 15 October 1999 the United Nations Security Council
adopted UNSCR Resolution 1267 (1999), calling for inter alia
sanctions against the Taliban, which were extended by UNSCR
Resolution 1333 (2000) to cover Osama Bin Laden and
persons and bodies associated with him. On 6 March 2001
the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. Under
Article 2 of that regulation all funds and other financial
resources belonging to any natural or legal person, entity or
body listed in Annex I are to be frozen. On the basis of
Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 the Commission
adopted Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001. As a result of the
amendment of its list by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the Security Council, the Commission decided to add a number
of other persons and bodies to Annex I to Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001, including the applicants.

submit

applicants

The
that Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001 — which provides that the applicants’ funds are
to be frozen and that resources are not to be made available to
them — exceeds the powers which the Council has under
Article 60 and 301 EC and is in breach of Article 249 EC. The
Council does not have the power to adopt sanctions against
individuals and organisations and has misused its powers.
Moreover,
in practice, the Council and Commission have
delegated decisions as to which persons or organisations
should be included in Annex I to the Taliban Sanctions
Committee.