Case C-295/03 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2003 by Alessandrini Srl and Others against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01 between Alessandrini Srl and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), import (EU), import licence, tropical fruit

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/19

Action brought on 7 July 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-294/03)

In accordance with Article 228 (2) of the EC Treaty, the
Commission asks the Court to impose a penalty payment of
EUR 21 600 on Ireland for each day’s delay in implementing
the Court’s judgment in Case C-392/96, beginning from the
day on which the Court gives its judgment in the present case.

(2003/C 213/32)

(1) OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40.

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 7 July 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Xavier Lewis and Florence Simonetti, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1) Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Article 4 (2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment (1) in respect of
peat extraction projects or, in any event, by failing to
notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has
not implemented all the measures necessary to comply
with the judgment of the Court of 21 September 1999 in
Case C-392/96 Commission v. Ireland and has failed to
fully fulfil its obligations under Article 228 of the Treaty;

2) Order Ireland to pay to the Commission of the European
Communities,
into the account EC own resources, a
penalty payment of EUR 21 600 for each day of delay in
implementing the measures necessary to comply with
the judgment in Case C-392/96, from delivery of the
judgment in these proceedings until judgment in Case
C-392/96 has been complied with,

3) Order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application concerns the failure by Ireland to comply
with the judgment of 21 September 1999 in Case C-392/96
in so far as Ireland has taken inadequate measures since that
judgment to ensure that Irish legislation complies with Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects (‘the Directive’)
in respect of peat extraction projects covered by point 2(a) of
Annex II of that Directive. Although Ireland has taken some
measures in an effort to execute the judgment, they remain
inadequate in theory and have not been implemented in
practice.

Appeal brought on 2 July 2003 by Alessandrini Srl and
Others against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-93/00 and
T-46/01 between Alessandrini Srl and Others and the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-295/03 P)

(2003/C 213/33)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2003
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01
between Alessandrini Srl and Others and the Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 2 July 2003 by
Alessandrini Srl and Others, represented by W. Viscardini and
G. Donà.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

1.

2.

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
10 April 2003 in Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01 as
to that part which deals with the application for damages;

order the Commission to pay the appellants damages for
the losses sustained as a result of the Commission’s failure
to grant certificates for the import of bananas from non-
member countries,
in the sum quantified in para-
graph 114-A of the pleading, totalling LIT 370 983 900
(EUR 191 597,20) together with currency re-valuation
and interest, and

3.

order the Commission to reimburse the appellants their
costs of the proceedings both at first instance and on
appeal.

C 213/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants plead that the Court erred in finding that the
damage which they alleged arose from the fact of not
managing to import ACP bananas. In truth, the appellants
were complaining that in 1999 and 2000 they had not
obtained certificates to import bananas from non-member
countries despite their right to do so under their reference
quantity based exclusively on imports of bananas from non-
member countries. The appellants submit that the Court failed
to take account of
their
application for damages.

their arguments in support of

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration by judgment of that Court of
27 June 2003 in the case of Société Anonyme Glaxo-
SmithKline against Belgian State

(Case C-296/03)

(2003/C 213/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
Section d’Administration (Council of State, Administrative
Section) of 27 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
8 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société
Anonyme GlaxoSmithKline against Belgian State on the fol-
lowing question:

Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
further 90 days, referred to in the first subparagraph of
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) be
considered to be a strict time-limit precluding, upon expiry,
the adoption of any decision, even where an initial decision
adopted timeously has been annulled?

( 1) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.

2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
to comply with Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) relating
to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
by failing to have informed the Commission of any
such laws, regulations or administrative provisions, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

2.

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive was to be incorporated
into national law expired on 9 April 2002.

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

Action brought on 14 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-302/03)

(2003/C 213/36)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Van Beek and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

Action brought on 10 July 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-298/03)

(2003/C 213/35)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July

— find that, by failing to adopt

the laws, regulations
and 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 or, in any
event, by failing to communicate the same to the
Commission the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 9 of that directive;