Case C-232/05: Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, administrative cooperation, control of State aid, discount sale, exchange of information, industrial plot, infringement of EU law, redemption

C 171/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.7.2005

Article 12 of the directive lays a duty on Member States to take
the objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the
consequences of such accidents into account in their land-use
policies and/or other relevant policies. Member States have a
duty to control the siting of new establishments and to set up
appropriate consultation procedures to facilitate the implemen-
tation of the policies. However, the Commission has received
no implementing measure in respect of Article 12 for the Land
of Upper Austria.

With regard to the so-called ‘domino effect’ establishments,
Article 8(2)(b) of the directive requires Member States to make
provision for cooperation in informing the public and in
supplying information to the competent authority for the
preparation of external emergency plans. This provision has
not, as yet, been implemented in the Länder of Burgenland,
Upper Austria, Salzburg, Tyrol and Vorarlberg.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

Action brought on 26 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-232/05)

(2005/C 171/20)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Christophe Giolito, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

State aid granted by the French Republic to Scott Paper SA
Kimberly-Clark (State aid CR 38/1998, ex NN 52/1998) (OJ
2002 L 12, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of the
EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French authorities have not done what is necessary to
ensure the correct,
immediate and effective execution of the
decision in accordance with national procedures, contrary to
Article 14(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999
of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the applica-
tion of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1) which provides that the
Member State is to take all necessary measures to recover the
aid from the beneficiary. The decision of the national court
runs counter to its obligation to give practical effect to Com-
munity law, and under French law it is not possible to take
interim measures to offset the automatic effect of the stay of
proceedings.

times for a copy of

The position of the French authorities appears to be contrary
to the duty to cooperate in good faith as defined in Article 10
EC. France did not reply to the Commission's letter of 21
November 2003 despite three reminders and a meeting held
between the Commission's DG Competition and the French
authorities to go over the French cases of recovery of State aid.
In particular, in spite of the fact that the Commission asked
France several
the order staying the
proceedings, it never obtained one. The Commission therefore
remains uncertain with regard to the exact progress of the
recovery proceedings. That doubt is moreover increased by the
fact that information obtained from unofficial sources in July
2004 by the Commission shows that the order staying the
proceedings was never made, contrary to the assertions of the
French authorities. In those circumstances, the Commission is
unable to deal with the recovery in a spirit of cooperation in
good faith as defined by the case-law of the Court.

1. declare that, by failing to execute, within the prescribed
period, the Commission decision of 12 July 2000 on the

(1) OJ L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1.