Case C-247/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal life, leisure park, protection of animals, veterinary inspection, wildlife

C 184/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Protocol, the discharge into the
lake of the substances referred to in Article 6(1) is subject to
two, cumulative conditions:
first, there must be a discharge
authorisation issued by the competent national authorities and,
secondly, that authorisation must take due account of all the
relevant provisions of Annex III to the Protocol. The French
Republic has failed to comply with either of those two condi-
tions.

(1) OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 3.
(2) Convention for the Protection of

the Mediterranean Sea against

Pollution (Barcelona Convention), OJ L 240 of 19.9.1977, p. 3.
(3) Council Decision of 25 July 1977 concluding the Convention for
the protection of the Mediterranean Sea against pollution and the
Protocol for the prevention of the pollution of the Mediterranean
Sea by dumping from ships and aircraft (OJ L 240 of 19.09.1977,
p. 1).

(4) Council Decision of 28 February 1983 concluding the Protocol for
the Mediterranean Sea against pollution from

the protection of
land-based sources (OJ L 67 of 12.03.1983, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour adminis-
trative by order of that Court of 3 June 2003 in the case
of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus

(Case C-242/03)

(2003/C 184/42)

the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) of 3 June 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Minister for Finance against Jean-Claude Weidert and
Elisabeth Paulus on the following question:

Justice of

Is Article 129c of the Law of 4 December 1967 on income
in the version applicable to the 2000 tax
tax, as amended,
year, which, subject to certain conditions and limits, grants tax
relief to taxpayers who are natural persons and acquire shares
representing cash contributions in fully-taxable resident capital
companies, compatible with the principle of the free move-
ment of capital within the European Community as laid down
the
by Article 56(1) of
the EC Treaty,
restrictions on that principle
alia by
Article 58(1)(a) of the EC Treaty?

taking account of

laid down inter

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-246/03)

(2003/C 184/43)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and,
in any event, to
notify to the Commission the laws,
regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or
the
resulting from action taken by the institutions of
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full
incor-
poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-247/03)

(2003/C 184/44)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser, and Minas Konstantinidis,
of its Legal Service.

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/25

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt and,
in any event, to
regulations and
notify to the Commission the laws,
administrative provisions necessary
to comply with
Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999
relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos,
the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or
the
resulting from action taken by the institutions of
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
incor-
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full
poration of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
‘TASEIS TRENDS’
European Communities against
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)
Marios Kontaratos and Others

(1)

(Case C-248/03)

(2003/C 184/45)

‘TASEIS TRENDS’
(Transport Environ-
An action against (1)
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and
Others was brought before the Court of
the
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of
the Brussels Bar, and K.
Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

Justice of

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— allow the application in its entirety;
— order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the
defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the
the wrongly made
Commission the entire amount of
advance payments received by the defendant partnership
from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,
that
is to say the sum of EUR 48 046, together with
contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
calculated in that way
of mispayment,

interest

the

amounting to EUR 15 745,34 on 30 September 2002
the
and to EUR 7,97 (7,03 plus 0,94) per day until
defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or,
in the
alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
of EUR 48 046, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
1998 (when the period laid down by the order
for
payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully
discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to
EUR 9 911 and thereafter EUR 7,24 per day;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

‘TASEIS TRENDS’

The defendant
is a civil-law partnership
governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion
of research and the dissemination of information on proble-
matical
issues in relation to the environment, development,
town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the
Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 94/
801/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme
for research and technological development, including demon-
stration in the field of
telematics applications of common
interest (1994 to 1998) (1), the following contracts: (i) Contract
ARTEMIS — EN 1001 (implementation of the project ‘Artemis
— Application Research and Testing for Emergency Manage-
Intelligent Systems’) and (ii) Contract TILEMATT —
ment
TR 1057 (implementation of the project ‘Tilematt — Testing
and Implementing Links in Europe for Multimodal Applica-
tions of Transport Telematics’).

Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the
Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
sement of the sums overpaid.

The Commission pleads:

— in support of
its principal claim: Article 5,3(a)(ii) of
Annex II
the
to the contracts, which provides
Commission may immediately terminate the contract, or
the participation of any contractor, by written notice for
any financial irregularity of a serious nature;

that

— in support of

the principal head of claim regarding
payment of interest: the third paragraph of Article 5,4 of
in the
Annex II to the contracts, which provides that,
event of termination of the contract under Article 5,3(a)
of the annex,
interest is payable on any amount to be
reimbursed;

— in support of

the alternative head of claim regarding
payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.