Case C-164/02: Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, State aid, action for annulment (EU), harbour installation, network of navigable waterways, waste

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/9

Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

views on future developments within that sector. By so
doing, the Commission has created legitimate expec-
tations.

(Case C-164/02)

(2002/C 156/16)

(1) Even though this is compatible with the common market under
Article 87(3)(c) EC, with reference to point 38 of the Guidelines
on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of
the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Commission Decision SG (2002) D/228533 of
15 February 2002 relating to Aid Measure No N 812/
2001 (the Decision, Annex 1) in so far as the Commission
takes the view therein that the contributions paid to
port authorities pursuant
to the Stimuleringsregeling
verwerking baggerspecie (Rules on incentives to encour-
age the recycling of dredging silt) constitute State aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC (1);

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Breach of Article 87 EC: the Netherlands Government
considers that the Commission errs in taking the view
that, in the administration of waterways and the mainten-
ance of general infrastructures in port areas, port auth-
orities may be regarded as being undertakings within the
meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
In the opinion of the
Netherlands Government, the administration of shipping
channels (including dredging) must be regarded in this
connection as being a public responsibility and not an
economic activity. Investments in infrastructures of this
kind are, under normal circumstances, regarded by the
Commission as constituting general measures, expendi-
ture on which is borne by the State as part of its
responsibilities within the area of planning and develop-
ment of a transport system serving the general public
interest, on condition that the infrastructures, in accord-
ance with Community legislation, are de jure and de facto
open to all actual or potential users.

— Infringement of the principle that reasons must be given.

— Infringement of

the protection of
the principles of
legitimate expectations and of legal certainty: the Com-
mission has, in a number of documents, made known its
views on State aid within the ports sector. In these
documents, which consist of a variety of decisions, the
Commission has, on the one hand, detailed and clarified
the Treaty provisions relating to,
inter alia, State aid
within the ports sector, and, on the other, set out its

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial
de Comarca de Alca´cer do Sal by order of that Court of
26 April 2002 in the case of Daniel Fernando Messejana
Viegas against Companhia de Seguros Zurich S.A. and
Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal S.A., CGU International
Insurance plc — Agência Geral em Portugal, intervener

(Case C-166/02)

(2002/C 156/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Judicial de
Comarca de Alca´cer do Sal of 26 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 2 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas against Companhia
de Seguros Zurich S.A. and Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal
S.A., CGU International Insurance plc — Agência Geral em
Portugal, intervener.

The Tribunal Judicial de Comarca de Alca´cer do Sal requests
the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the interpretation of
Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC (1) of 30 December 1983
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to third-party liability insurance in respect of the use of motor
vehicles (2), having regard to Article 508 of the Civil Code.

(1) OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17.
(2) Which,

in the applicant’s view,

fixes the minimum capital
for compulsory third-party insurance without establishing any
dichotomy of schemes or limits to strict liability, with the result
that, if the accident had taken place in any other country within
the Community, the person responsible would have had to pay
compensation up to the amount compulsorily insured (which
now is EUR 600 000). Moreover, the limit imposed by that
directive is a minimum amount, which implies the repeal of
Article 508 of the Civil Code which sets the maximum amount of
compensation in the case of a road traffic accident at ‘the amount
equal to twice the maximum value of actions which may be
decided on appeal’ (that is to say, EUR 29 927,88).