Case C-508/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, town planning

C 47/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

annul the decision of the Commission to set payment of
the balance of the Community subsidy for carrying out
the NELS Eurofix study (EU/D/99/170), granted under
Commission Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July
1999, at EUR 80 450,71 in so far as it declares the
expenditure connected with the IPR contract between
NODECA NELS CAO and GAUSS Research Foundation
(NODECA/2000/040) not eligible for subsidy;

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.
As the first ground for its action, the applicant alleges
substantive breach of secondary Community law and general
principles of law. The decision not to recognise the acquisition
of Eurofix as expenditure qualifying for subsidy and to fix the
amount of the balance of the aid at a correspondingly lower
figure is not only in breach of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules
for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of
trans-European networks (1) in conjunction with Commission
Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July 1999 on the grant of
a Community subsidy of up to EUR 0,7 million for study
No EU/D/99/170. By its decision the Commission has also
clearly erred in its assessment and at the same time has
thwarted the applicant’s legitimate expectation that Com-
mission legal measures will continue to apply, has infringed
the principle of legal certainty and has not acted in accordance
with the principle of proper administration.

2.
As the second ground for its action, the applicant points
to formal breaches of Community law, since no clear basis for
the contested decision can be seen, even on an overview of the
events, which is capable of justifying the decision. If, by its
decision, the Commission intended a change to the eligible
expenses underlying the approval,
the contested decision
would moreover be formally unlawful, because it should not
have been taken by way of delegation. The applicant raises this
as the third ground for its action.

3.
The fourth ground for the action concerns the breach of
the principle of cooperation in good faith between the
Commission and Member States in accordance with Article 10
EC.

(1) OJ 1995 L 228 p. 1.

Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-508/03)

(2004/C 47/27)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, acting as agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

2)

3)

declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
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 relation to the
proposed urban development project at White City as a
project
the
Directive,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of

declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
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 in relation to the
proposed urban development project at Crystal Palace as
a project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
Directive,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

declare that by failing to ensure the correct application of
Articles 2(1), 4(2), 5(2) and 8 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
as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) when development
consent is granted for projects in a multi-stage consent
procedure, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

4)

order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to pay the costs.

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/17

Pleas in law and main arguments

The White City Development

The Commission submits that the competent authority could
not reasonably have reached the conclusion that an impact
assessment was unnecessary when it based such a conclusion
principally or solely on the fact that the land in question had
been previously developed. That criterion for excluding the
need of an impact assessment is an innovation of Government
Circular 15/68. Directive 85/337/EEC contains no such test
and it is submitted that, by relying on a ground for excluding an
impact assessment which is not found in the aforementioned
Directive, the United Kingdom has failed to apply Articles 2(1)
and 4(2) of that Directive correctly in the case of the proposed
urban development project at White City.

The Crystal Palace Development

The Commission maintains that, by not requiring an impact
assessment for the Crystal Palace development, the United
Kingdom has exceeded its margin of discretion under Directive
85/377/EEC. The Commission submits that the margin of
discretion afforded a Member State under Article 4(2) of the
Directive is not unlimited. The limits of that discretion are
circumscribed by Article 2(1) of the Directive — i.e. an impact
assessment is required where a project, by virtue of its size,
nature or location, is likely to have significant environmental
effects. The Commission submits that, according to those
criteria, the project is likely to have such effects.

Multi-stage procedure governing applications for planning
permission

The Commission does not question the legality of dividing the
planning process into two stages per se, but submits that the
manner in which planning authorisation is actually divided
into two stages in the United Kingdom leads to results which
are incompatible with Directive 85/337/EEC.

A large urban development project may escape assessment at
the outline planning stage and no impact assessment
is
possible (under English law) at the second, reserved matters
stage. Consequently, a large urban development project which
is likely to have significant effects on the environment is not
considered as a whole but in separate parts. The practical result
is that the likely effects on the environment are not considered
in the light of the project as a whole.

Even if an environmental impact assessment is carried out at
the outline planning stage, it may be inadequate because it is
based on the information provided in the outline planning
application which may be insufficient to evaluate the effects of
the development as a whole on the environment. Thus, the
impact assessment will be carried out on an incomplete basis.

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
(2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof
Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 4 December
2003 in the case of J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buiten-
land te Heerlen

(Case C-512/03)

(2004/C 47/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Gerechthof Herzogen-
busch of 4 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen on the
following questions:

1.

Is a foreign taxpayer, who is a resident of a Member State
and does not receive any income from employment in
the Netherlands, but only from savings and investments,
and who is therefore not obliged to pay, and does not
pay, any social security contributions to the Netherlands
national insurance schemes, entitled under EC law to
Netherlands tax credits for national insurance schemes
(general old-age insurance, general insurance for depend-
ants and general
special medical
insurance against
expenses) in the calculation of his taxable income from
savings and investments,
in the case where resident
taxpayers are entitled to those tax credits in the calculation
of their taxable income from savings and investments
because they are regarded as insured and as obliged to
pay social security contributions to the Netherlands
national insurance schemes, even if they do not receive
any income in the Netherlands from employment, but
only from savings and investments, and for that reason
do not pay any social security contributions in the
Netherlands either?

2.

In answering the first question, is it relevant that the
foreign taxpayer in question earns in excess of or less
than 90 % of his family income in the Netherlands? In
particular: