Case C-134/06: Action brought on  8 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, veterinarian, vocational training

C 108/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

Action brought on 8 March 2006 — European Parliament
v Council of the European Union

(Case C-133/06)

(2006/C 108/19)

the contested provisions disregard the role of co-legislator
conferred by the EC Treaty on the European Parliament and
despite the legislative resolution of 27 September 2005,
adopted in the course of the consultation procedure concerning
the directive in question, by which the Parliament drew that
point to the Council's attention.

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer
Tebbens, A. Caiola and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

Action brought on 8 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

(Case C-134/06)

(2006/C 108/20)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Language of the case: Greek

— annul, under Article 230 EC, Articles 29(1) and (2) and
36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December
2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member
States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (1);

— alternatively, annul Directive 2005/85/EC in its entirety;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

The European Parliament raises four pleas in law in support of
its application: infringement of the EC treaty, the Council's lack
of competence to enact the provisions in question, breach of
an essential procedural requirement and, more precisely, failure
to state reasons for the contested provisions and breach of the
duty to cooperate in good faith.

By reserving to itself the adoption and amendment by the
consultation procedure of the minimum common list of third
countries regarded as safe countries of origin and of the list of
European safe third countries, the Council infringed the first
indent of Article 67(5) EC providing for passage to the co-deci-
sion procedure after the legislation defining the basic principles
and common rules in respect of the policy on asylum and refu-
gees has been adopted. The Council has no power to enact, in
secondary legislation, a legal basis for the adoption of succes-
sive acts of secondary legislation,
in so far as they do not
constitute implementing measures.

In addition, the Council has not stated reasons sufficient in law
for that reservation as to legislation contained in Articles 29(1)
and (2) and 36(3) of Directive 2005/85/EC, which constitutes a
breach of an essential procedural requirement. Finally,
the
Council failed to comply with the duty, under Article 10 EC, to
cooperate in good faith with the European Parliament, since

Form of order sought

The applicant asks the Court to

— declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions, as regards the profes-
sion of veterinary surgeon, that are necessary to comply
with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Direc-
tives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for
the recognition of professional qualifications and Council
Directives
78/686/EEC,
78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC,
80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and
93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible
for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon,
midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (1), or in any
event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 16 of that Directive;

77/452/EEC,

77/453/EEC,

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/13

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this case Article 16(1) of Directive 2001/19/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 provides
that Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive before 1 January 2003 and that they are to inform
the Commission thereof forthwith.

The Commission considers that Greece has not yet taken the
measures necessary as regards the profession of veterinary
surgeon.

(1) OJ L 206 of 31/07/2001

4. Annul the decision of the respondent of 28 April 2004, as a
result of which the special aid for the severely handicapped
which was granted by another source to Frederik, the son of
like
the appellant, was declared to be an ‘allowance of
nature’, within the meaning of Article 67(2) of the Staff
Regulations, to the double child allowance which had been
granted to the appellant;

5. Order the respondent to pay the appellant compensation (in
the alternative: the statutory interest which has accrued) in
respect of the harm incurred as a result of the fact that parts
of his income in the form of double child allowance were
unjustly retained since 1 December 1998;

6. Order the respondent to pay the costs of appeal and at first
instance, including the expenses incurred by the appellant.

Appeal brought on 10 March 2006 by Roderich Weißen-
fels against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
delivered on 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 Roderich
Weißenfels v European Parliament

(Case C-135/06 P)

(2006/C 108/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Roderich Weißenfels (represented by: G. Maximini,
Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

1. Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) of 25 January 2006 in Case T-33/04 (Weißenfels
v European Parliament) (1), notified on 31 January 2006;

2. Annul the decision of the respondent of 26 June 2003, as a
result of which the special aid for the severely handicapped
which was awarded from another source to the appellant's
son Frederik was deducted from the double child allowance
granted to the appellant under Article 67(3) of the Staff
Regulations;

3. Annul the implied decision of refusal of the respondent to
pay back to the appellant, in accordance with his applica-
tion of 4 June 2003, the double child allowance which had
been unjustly retained in the past;

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant contends that the Court of First
Instance made procedural errors as, in its disputed judgment, it
did not properly consider the claims of the appellant and
unlawfully limited the scope of his application. The finding of
the Court of First Instance that a claim for compensation was
expressed only in the wording of the reply was erroneous, as
the relevant original claim in the application is, as regards its
content, to be considered as a claim for compensation.

At a formal level, the Court of First Instance did not examine
the similarity of the allowances in question — as is a require-
ment for the application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions — and did not recognise this at a material level. At a
formal level, there could not be any ‘allowances of like nature’,
as the Luxembourg special allowance is in no way linked to the
status of being employed. At a material level, the difference in
purpose of the two allowances should be taken into account:
whereas only the appellant himself has a claim to the allowance
under Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations for the purpose of
receiving it — independently of his place of residence — only
the person who is entitled — thus, the son of the appellant —
has a claim to the independent Luxembourg special allowance,
which is for the purpose of his care, so long as he lives in
Luxembourg.

Application of Article 67(2) of the Staff Regulations is therefore
ruled out, as neither at a formal nor at a material level is there
an allowance of like nature which is paid from a separate
source, within the meaning of the Community law in this
regard. The contrary view taken by the Court of First Instance
therefore infringes Community law.

(1) OJ 2006 C 74, p. 18.