Case C-28/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by order of that Court of 23 October 2002 in the case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex Atikhimaton Aftokiniton against the Minister for Development
Date: 2003-03-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, claim, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, law of obligations, life assurance, liquidation

22.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/11

Action brought on 23 January 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-27/03)

(2003/C 70/17)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 January 2003 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and M. Van
Beek, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that,

in so far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels, the
Flemish Region and the Walloon Region are concerned,
the Kingdom of Belgium failed to ensure that systems for
the collection and treatment of urban waste water were
brought
into operation on 31 December 1998, as
provided for in Άrticles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/
EEC (1),

in so far as the Walloon Region is concerned, the
Kingdom of Belgium has not forwarded to the Com-
mission an implementation programme, as provided for
in Article 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC, which complies
with the directive from the point of view of the time-
limits laid down; and

in so far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels is
concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has not forwarded
to the Commission an implementation programme which
complies fully with the format prescribed by Commission
Decision 93/481/EEC (2);

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

— The implementation programme of the Region of the
Capital City of Brussels does not contain the information
required pursuant to Table 2.3 of Decision 93/481/EEC
as regards the number and capacity of collection systems
discharging into receiving waters which are considered
‘sensitive areas’.

— It is apparent from the part of the Walloon implemen-
tation programme relating to the implementation of
Article 3 of the directive in normal areas that the
collection systems to which agglomerations with a popu-
lation equivalent of more than 15 000 will be connected
will not reach their definitive capacity until 31 December
2005, whereas the directive lays down a time-limit of
31 December 2000. It is also apparent from the part of
the Walloon programme relating to the implementation
of Article 4 of the directive in normal areas that the
water treatment plants to which agglomerations with a
population equivalent of more than 15 000 and less than
150 000 will be connected will not reach their definitive
capacity until 31 December 2005, whereas the directive
lays down a time-limit of 31 December 2000.

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

(2) Commission Decision 93/481/EEC of 28 July 1993 concerning
formats for the presentation of national programmes as foreseen
by Article 17 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ 1993 L 226,
p. 23).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias by order of that Court of 23 October 2002 in
the case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex
Atikhimaton Aftokiniton against the Minister for Devel-
opment

(Case C-28/03)

(2003/C 70/18)

Pleas in law and main arguments

— As far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels and a
large number of agglomerations of the Flemish Region
are concerned, the time-limit of 31 December 1998 for
the entry into service of systems for the collection and
treatment of urban waste water was not complied with.
Discharges of urban waste water from 44 agglomerations
with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 in
the territory of the Walloon Region contribute to the
pollution of Flanders and Netherlands territory and the
North Sea coasts of Belgium and the Netherlands. The
to have applied
Walloon Region ought
Article 5(5) of the directive and made provision for
tertiary treatment for the agglomerations in question.

therefore

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State) of 23 October 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 24 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex Atikhimaton
Aftokiniton (Additional Insurance Fund for Motor Vehicle
Accident Liability) against the Minister for Development on
the following question:

Given the provisions of, in particular, Articles 15 and 16 of
First Council Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
taking up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other

C 70/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.3.2003

than life assurance (1), as supplemented and amended by
Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC (2) and Third Council
Directive 92/49/EEC (3), and Articles 17 and 18 of First Council
Directive 79/267/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
pursuit of the business of direct life assurance (4), as amended
and supplemented by Second Council Directive 90/619/EEC (5)
and Third Council Directive 92/96/EEC (6), may the national
legislature provide that, where an insurance company is the
subject of insolvency proceedings, is put into liquidation or is
otherwise in a state of insolvency, claims arising from an
employment relationship with it are satisfied from the assets
which are included in its technical provisions in preference to
claims of persons entitled to an insurance payment and of
successors to all or certain of their rights?

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 7 of the General Conditions of the Contract , the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities and, on
appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Communities have
jurisdiction in any action concerning the validity, application
and interpretation of the contract.

Since the abovementioned amounts, overpaid by the Com-
mission, have not been repaid, the defendant failed to fulfil its
obligations under the contract.

( 1) OJ L 228 of 16.08.1973, p. 3.
( 2) OJ L 172 of 04.07.1988, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 228 of 11.08.1992, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 63 of 13.03.1979, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 330 of 29.11.1990, p. 50.
( 6) OJ L 360 of 09.12.1992, p. 1.

Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
ITEC-Instituto
of

the European Communities against

Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária

(Case C-29/03)

(2003/C 70/19)

An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa
Comunitária was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 27 January 2003 (previously
brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 January 2003)
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

Action brought on 27 January 2003 by Commission
ITEC-Instituto
of the European Communities against

Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária

(Case C-30/03)

(2003/C 70/20)

An action against ITEC-Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa
Comunitária was brought before the Court of
Justice of
the European Communities on 27 January 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(a)

order the defendant to pay EUR 29 538,01, consisting of
EUR 26 105,97 as a capital amount and EUR 3 432,04
by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
5,25 %;

(b) order payment of EUR 3,75 per diem, by way of interest
at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full
payment is made;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(c)

order the defendant to pay the costs.

(a)

order the defendant to pay EUR 69 089,84 consisting of
EUR 62 236,65 as a capital amount and EUR 6 853,19
by way of interest until 31 December 2002 at the rate
6,28 %;

(b) order payment of EUR 10,71 per diem, by way of interest
at the same rate from 31 December 2002 until full
payment is made;

(c)

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 12(2) of the contract, the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities and, on appeal, the Court of
Justice of the European Communities have jurisdiction in any
action concerning the validity, application and interpretation
of the contract.