Case C-70/02: Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, cross-frontier data flow, personal data, protection of privacy, telecommunications

C 109/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The adoption by Ireland of the Quality of Shellfish Waters
(Amendment) Regulations 2001 brought its legislation into
conformity with Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC by requir-
ing programmes in respect of all designated waters. The
Commission is not, however, in possession of any information
indicating that Ireland has similarly rectified its position with
regard to its failure to adopt all the programmes required by
Article 5 of the directive. It is not sufficient merely to introduce
the requirement into national law — the programmes must be
established in practice in accordance with Article 5.

The Commission is in possession of official confirmation by
the Irish authorities that no pollution prevention programme
for designated shellfish waters had been adopted as of
14 December 2000. Subsequently, the Commission has not
been informed of any change to this position, whereas,
pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, programmes should
have been in place for all designated waters within six years of
the designation.

The Commission is, therefore, of the opinion that Ireland has
failed to fulfill its obligations under the directive.

(1) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47.

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
system (1), or at any rate to communicate the same to the
Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The third paragraph of Article 249 EC provides that a directive
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
Member State to which it is addressed. According to the first
paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are to take all
appropriate measures, whether general or specific, to ensure
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
resulting from actions taken by the institutions of the Com-
munity.

law by the due date,

The Member States are obliged to transpose the directive into
national
the
transposition process is completed before the expiry of the
time-limit fixed for transposition. That time-limit expired on
8 April 1999, but Austria has not adopted the necessary
measures.

in such a way that

(1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6.

Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-70/02)

(2002/C 109/59)

(Case C-68/02)

(2002/C 109/58)

An action against
the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
28 February 2002 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Com-
mission’s Legal Service, and Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
Escobar Guerrero, Legal Adviser, Wagner Centre C 254,
Kirchberg.

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by A. Aresu and M. Shotter, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by not having adopted all the measures
necessary to implement Articles 8(6) and 9(b) of Directive
97/66/EC of
the
Council (1) of 15 December 1997 concerning the pro-
cessing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
the telecommunications sector, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

the European Parliament and of

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/35

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

(a)

Failure to implement Article 8(6) of Directive 97/66.

Article 6(6) of Decree No 171/98 only partially
implements Article 8(6) of the directive in question, since
it makes no reference to the obligation to inform the
public of the possibilities set out in Articles 8(1), (2), (3)
and (4) of that directive to prevent the presentation of
CLI (‘calling line identification’) of incoming calls if CLI
has been eliminated, and of the possibility of eliminating
the presentation of connected line identification to the
calling user.

(b)

Failure to implement Article 9(b) of Directive 97/66.

Article 9(b) of the directive places an obligation on the
Member States to ensure that
there are procedures
governing the elimination of the presentation of calling
line identification on a per-line basis for organisations
dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such by a
Member State, for the purpose of answering such calls.
The Italian legislation does not appear to have implement-
ed that provision.

(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered
on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen
Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case C-73/02 P)

(2002/C 109/60)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and
T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai
Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Com-
munities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities on 8 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, represented by Giulia Di Tommaso
and Andrea Giardina, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

I.

set aside the judgment, on the ground that it applied
Community law wrongly and inconsistently, in so far as
it confirms the decision of the Commission of 21 January
1998 No 98/247/ECSC to impose a fine on the appellant
despite the fact that it belonged to the KTS Group;

In the alternative:

II.

III.

set aside the judgment, on the ground that it misapplied
Community law, in so far as it confirms Article 1 of
the decision of the Commission of 21 January 1998
No 98/247/ECSC, according to which the infringement
of the rules of competition imputed to AST is held to
have continued until the date of the decision itself;

set aside the judgment, on the ground that it infringed
the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination,
in so far as it does not uphold the appellant’s request that
the fine be reduced by 40 % in view of the appellant’s
cooperation in the course of the procedure;

in any event,

IV. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The appellant claims that the contested judgment should be
set aside on the following grounds:

— erroneous and inconsistent application of Community
law by imposing a fine on AST despite the fact that AST
belongs to the KTS group, which was subject to a fixed-
sum fine;

— misapplication of Community law in finding that the
the competition rules by AST was

infringement of
continuous;

— breach of

the principle of equaltreatment and non-
discrimination in the reduction applied to the fine in
consideration of the appellant’s cooperation during the
procedure.