Case C-506/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, Germany, action for annulment (EU), balance of payments assistance, trans-European network

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/15

2.

If the answer to the second alternative in question 1.
above is in the affirmative:

failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and
9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)

Does the proviso ‘subject to the same proviso’ contained
in the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive
92/12/EEC refer, also on taxation of the supply of services
relating to products subject to excise duty as defined by
Article 3(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC, only to the condition
laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that
directive, namely ‘provided, however, that those taxes do
not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade
between Member States’, or in such a case must ‘specific
purposes’ for the tax, as laid down in Article 3(2) of the
directive, also exist?

(1) OJ L 76, p. 1.

Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hel-
lenic Republic

(Case C-502/03)

(2004/C 47/25)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Nov-
ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the most recent records (December 2002), 1458
unlawful and uncontrolled waste tips are operating which
receive waste from 47 % of the country’s population.

The Greek authorities informed the Commission that the
programme to reduce unlawful and uncontrolled waste dis-
posal sites and their replacement with lawful
landfill sites
meeting public health requirements will only be completed at
the end of 2007.

The Commission considers that, inasmuch as it is allowing the
unlawful and uncontrolled sites to operate on its territory, the
Hellenic Republic is in breach of
its obligations under
Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as
amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary:

Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November
2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the
Commission of the European Communities

— to ensure that waste is disposed of without
endangering human health and without harming
the environment,

— to prohibit the abandonment, dispοsal and uncon-
trolled treatment of waste, to ensure that any holder
of waste has it handled by a private or public waste
collector or by an undertaking which carries out
disposal, or disposes of it himself, in accordance
with the measures taken under Article 4,

— to ensure that the establishments or undertakings
which carry out disposal operations operate under a
permit from the competent authority or under a
permit which meets the legal requirements, has

(Case C-506/03)

(2004/C 47/26)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003)
by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Wolf-
Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Finance,
and Christoph von Donat, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
service at the Federal Ministry for Finance, Berlin (Germany).

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.