Case C-87/02: Action brought on 13 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, environmental impact, impact study, project evaluation, road building

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/37

Action brought on 5 March 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-76/02)

(2002/C 109/62)

(Case C-87/02)

(2002/C 109/63)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal Service, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
with Commission Directive 2000/71/EC of 7 November
2000 to adapt the measuring methods as laid down in
Annexes I, II, III and IV to Directive 98/70/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council to technical
progress as foreseen in Article 10 of that Directive (1), or
at any rate to communicate the same to the Commission,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2(1) of that directive;

(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is such as to require
Member States to whom directives are addressed to transpose
such directives into national law so as to give full effect to
them before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition. The
time-limit prescribed in Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/71
expired on 1 January 2000 but the Republic of Austria has not
adopted the requisite provisions.

(1) OJ 2000 L 287, p. 46.

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michel Van Beek and Roberto Amorosi, acting
as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by the failure of the Abruzzo regional
authority to check whether the plans for the construction
of a road to by-pass the city of Teramo (the ‘Lotto Zero’
project — an alternative to the SS 80 trunk road between
Termano and Giulianova), which fell within the scope of
Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (1), required to be
assessed for its effects on the environment, in accordance
with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of
Directive 85/337/EEC;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 4(1) of the directive provides that projects of the classes
listed in Annex I are to be made subject to an assessment in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10. According to Article 4(2),
projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be made subject
to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where
Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
To that end, the Member States may inter alia specify certain
types of projects as being subject to an assessment or may
establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine
which of the projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be
subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

C 109/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

The ‘Lotto Zero’ project is a project covered by Annex II to the
directive. The Commission takes the view that, by failing to
ascertain whether that project required to be assessed for its
environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of
the directive, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(2).

— Infringement of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance: it is hardly possible to claim
that the matter of direct liability of the Community was
totally absent from the application initiating proceedings
and that it only appeared as a new plea in law in the
reply.

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International
SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret
International SA and Council of the European Union,
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements
Biret et Cie SA against the judgment delivered on 11 Janu-
ary 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-210/00
between Etablissements Biret et Cie SA and Council of
the European Union, supported by the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case C-93/02 P)

(2002/C 109/64)

(Case C-94/02 P)

(2002/C 109/65)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret
International and Council of the European Union, supported
by Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 2002 by Biret International SA, represented by M. de
Thoré and S. Rodrigues, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-210/00 between Etablisse-
ments Biret et Cie SA and Council of the European Union,
supported by Commission of the European Communities,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements Biret et
Cie SA, represented by S. Rodrigues, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
the European Communities on

Instance of

of First
11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00;

— uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;

and

— order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 300(7) EC: should the question as
to whether the WTO Agreements have direct effect, quod
non, be regarded by the Court of Justice as continuing to
condition the liability of the Community for infringement
of those Agreements, contrary to the requirements and
scope of Article 300(7) EC, the appellant requests the
Court of Justice, after having failed to persuade the Court
of First Instance and relying on its role of maintaining the
unity of the interpretation of Community law, to develop
its case-law and acknowledge that all or part of the WTO
Agreements have direct effect.

— set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
the European Communities on

Instance of

of First
11 January 2002 in Case T-210/00;

— uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;

and

— order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those put forward
in Case C-93/02 P (1).

(1) See p. 38 of this Official Journal.