Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer established in another Member State — Legal costs to be reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party Limitation)
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, lawyer, legal expenses, legal hearing, provision of services, redemption

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/9

Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen on the application of Delena Wells and Secretary of
State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on
the interpretation 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, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La
Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 2(1) 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, read in conjunction with
Article 4(2) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
the
context of applying provisions such as section 22 of
Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and Schedule 2 to that
Act, the decisions adopted by the competent authorities, whose
effect
the resumption of mining operations,
comprise, as a whole, a ‘development consent’ within the
meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, so that the competent
authorities are obliged, where appropriate, to carry out an
assessment of the environmental effects of such operations.

is to permit

In a consent procedure comprising several stages, that assess-
ment must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible
to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have
on the environment.

2.

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, an
individual may, where appropriate, rely on Article 2(1) of
Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and
4(2) thereof.

3. Under Article 10 EC the competent authorities are obliged to
take, within the sphere of their competence, all general or
particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out an
assessment of the environmental effects of a project as provided
for in Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337.

The detailed procedural rules applicable in that context are a
matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under
the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States,
provided that they are not less favourable than those governing
similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that
they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult
the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order
(principle of effectiveness).

In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether
it is possible under domestic law for a consent already granted
to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project to an
assessment of its environmental effects, in accordance with the
requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively,
the
individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim
compensation for the harm suffered.

if

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 11 December 2003

in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH
v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in
one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer
established in another Member State — Legal costs to be
reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the
successful party Limitation)

(2004/C 47/15)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-289/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between AMOK Verlags GmbH and A & R Gastronomie
GmbH, on the interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 49 EC, Article 50 EC and Council Directive 77/249/
EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by
lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not
precluding a judicial rule of a Member State limiting to the
level of the fees which would have resulted from representation
by a lawyer established in that State the reimbursement, by an
unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party, of costs
in respect of the services provided by a lawyer established in
another Member State.

2. Article 49 EC and Directive 77/249 must, however, be
construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State which
provides that the successful party to a dispute, in which that
party has been represented by a lawyer established in another
Member State, cannot recover from the unsuccessful party, in
addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising
before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national
legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction
with the first lawyer.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.