Case C-405/05: Action brought on  18.11.2005  by Commission against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, urban area, wastewater, water treatment

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/11

(prosecuted in Belgium as the offence of receiving and hand-
ling and performing other acts in regard to goods resulting
from crime, in breach of Article 505 of the Criminal Code),
are to be regarded as the “same acts” for the purposes of
Article 54 aforesaid where the courts establish that they
share a common intention and thus legally constitute a
single act?’

Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine,
Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newto-
nabbey, Omagh and Portrush at the latest by 31 December
2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4
paragraphs 1 and 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1).

2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:

Ireland to pay the costs.

2. order The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

‘Must the expression “may not be prosecuted … for the
same acts” in Article 54 of the Convention implementing
the Schengen Agreement be interpreted as meaning that the
“same acts” may also be constituted by different acts sharing
the same intention, and thus constituting a single act, which
would mean that a defendant can no longer be prosecuted
for the offence of money-laundering in Belgium once he has
been duly convicted in the Netherlands of other offences
committed with the same intention, regardless of any other
offences committed during the same period but which
became known or in respect of which prosecutions were
brought in Belgium only after the date of the definitive
foreign judgment or, in such a case, must that expression be
interpreted as meaning that
the court determining the
merits may enter a conviction in respect of these other acts
on a subsidiary basis, taking into account the sentences
those other
already imposed, unless
sentences in its view constitute sufficient punishment of all
the offences, and ensuring that the totality of the penalties
imposed may not exceed the maximum of
the severest
penalty?’

it considers

that

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the failure by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure
adequate treatment is provided for the entirety of the waste
water discharges produced in the agglomerations of Bangor,
Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Londonderry, Larne,
Lerwick, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh, Brighton, Portrush,
Donaghdee and Bideford/ Northam is in breach of Article 4,
paragraphs 1 and 3, of the directive. Furthermore, the failure to
control substantial new developments in the agglomerations of
Portrush, Newtonabbey, Bangor, Londonderry and Larne or to
ensure that
is accompanied by mitigating
measures is exacerbating the breaches of the aforementioned
articles of the Directive in these five agglomerations.

their approval

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment OJ L 135, 30.05.1991 P. 40 - 52

(1) OJ 2000, L 239, p. 19.

Action brought on 18.11.2005 by Commission against the
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

(Case C-405/05)

(2006/C 48/22)

(Language of the case: English)

Appeal brought on 23 November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf
and Al Barakaat International Foundation against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber
(Extended Composition)) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-
306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foun-
dation v the Council of the European Union and Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-415/05 P)

(2006/C 48/23)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18.11.2005 by the Commission,
represented by Sara Pardo Quintillan, Xavier Lewis and Hubert
van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that in failing to ensure that adequate treatment is
provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 21 September
2005 in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat Interna-
tional Foundation v the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the European Communities on 23
the Court of
November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat Interna-
tional Foundation, Spånga (Sweden),
represented by Leif
Silbersky and Thomas Olsson, lawyers.

Justice of