Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC — Community's railways — Development — Licensing of railway undertakings — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, organisation of transport, rail transport, transport licence

C 300/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.12.2004

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 5 October 2004

effect from 1 January 2003 until the date of the judgment
herein, and at the annual rate applied under the aforemen-
tioned provision of Greek legislation, subject to a limit of a
rate of 7.25 % per annum with effect from the date of the
judgment herein pending full payment of the debt;

— in respect of the amount of EUR 111 115.82, at the rate of
4.78 % per annum with effect from 15 January 2002 until
31 December 2002, at the rate of 6.78 % per annum with
effect from 1 January 2003 until the date of the judgment
herein, and at the annual rate applied under the aforemen-
tioned provision of Greek legislation, subject to a limit of a
rate of 6.78 % per annum with effect from the date of the
judgment herein pending full payment of the dept.

2. G. & E. Gianniotis EPE to pay the costs.

in Case C-524/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v G. & E. Gianniotis EPE (1)

(1) OJ C 59 of 6 March 2004.

(Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of amounts advanced
— Interest on late payment — Default proceedings)

(2004/C 300/49)

(Language of the case: Greek)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

In Case C-524/03, application under Article 238 EC brought
on 16 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: D. Triantafyllou, assisted by N. Korogian-
nakis) against G. & E. Gianniotis EPE, trading under the name
of ‘Nosokomeio Agia Eleni’, established in Piraeus (Greece), the
Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and K.
Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Regis-
trar, delivered a judgment on 5 October 2004 in which it
ordered:

1. G. & E. Gianniotis EPE to pay to the Commission of the European
Communities the amount of EUR 212 010.17 by way of prin-
cipal, plus interest thereon as follows:

— in respect of the amount of EUR 72 136.15, at the rate of
6 % per annum with effect from 30 September 2001 until
31 December 2002, at the rate of 8 % per annum with effect
from 1 January 2003 until the date of the judgment herein,
and at the annual rate applied pursuant to the Greek law, that
is to say currently Article 3(2) of Law No 2842/2000 on the
replacement of the Drachma by the Euro, subject to a limit of
a rate of 8 % per annum with effect from the date of the judg-
ment herein pending full payment of the debt;

— in respect of the amount of EUR 28 758.20, at the rate of
5.25 % per annum with effect from 30 November 2001 until
31 December 2002, at the rate of 7.25 % per annum with

in Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC — Commu-
nity's railways — Development — Licensing of railway
undertakings — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity
and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastruc-
ture and safety certification — Failure to transpose within
the prescribed period)

(2004/C 300/50)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case C-550/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: W. Wils and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N.
Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil
obligations, brought on 23 December 2003 — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting as the President
of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rappor-
teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/25

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

of

the laws,

development

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on
the
railways, Directive
the Community's
2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the
licensing of railway undertakings, and Directive 2001/14/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001
on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying
of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certifica-
tion, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
those directives.

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 59 of 3.2.2004.

Appeal brought on 24 September 2004 (fax of 16
September 2004) by Dalmine SpA against the judgment
delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-50/00 between Dalmine SpA and the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case C-407/04 P)

(2004/C 300/51)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-50/00 Dalmine SpA v Commis-
sion of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of
the European Communities on 24
September 2004 by Dalmine SpA, represented by A. Sinagra,
M. Siragusa and F.M. Moretti, lawyers.

Justice of

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance

together with the decision originally contested; or

— annul the contested judgment and, consequently, the parts
of the Commission decision covered by such pleas put
forward in the present notice of appeal as the Court may
find to be acceptable and well founded;

committed by the Court of First Instance in assessing the
appropriateness of the penalty, or as a consequence of the
annulment, in whole or in part, of the judgment, with par-
ticular (but not exclusive) regard to the findings of the
Court of First
Instance in relation to the infringements
found in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision;

— assess whether,

for various reasons and pursuant to its
autonomous jurisdiction,
it should refer the case back to
the Court of First Instance for reconsideration and a new
judgment which should take account of the Court of Justi-
ce's interpretation of the legislation and of the principles of
law in the present case;

— lastly, in any event, set aside the order as to costs in the
judgment of
Instance and order the
Commission to pay Dalmine's costs at first instance and
those of the appeal.

the Court of First

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is flawed for:

— infringement and misapplication of Community law, and
infringement of the rights of the defence, in finding that the
questions which the Commission put to the applicant, in
particular by the decision requesting information under
Article 11(5) of Regulation No 17/62 (1), were lawful;

— infringement and misapplication of Community law and
infringement of the rights of the defence in finding that the
‘Sharing Key’ document was admissible and of evidential
value;

— infringement and misapplication of Community law and
infringement of the rights of the defence in finding that the
the interview with the former director of
minutes of
Dalmine were admissible and of evidential value;

— infringement of Article 81 EC as regards the legitimacy of
the inclusion in the decision of extraneous grounds in the
complaints made against the undertakings;

— infringement of Article 81 EC, misapplication of the law,
distortion of the evidence and breach of the duty to state
reasons in respect of the determination of the object of the
alleged infringement under Article 1 of the decision, the
assessment of its implementation, the determination of its
effects and the fact of treating a potential, unimplemented
infringement, or one without any appreciable effect on
competition, in the same way as fully implemented infrin-
gements which have an unlawful object and effect;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of

the decision and
substantially reduce the fine imposed, taking account of the
grounds and facts put forward in the present notice of
law
appeal, whether as a consequence of the errors of

— infringement of Article 81 EC, misapplication of the law,
distortion of the evidence and breach of the duty to state
reasons in respect of the alleged effect on trade between
Member States;