Case C-76/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 February 2006  by Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. against the judgment delivered on  29 November 2005  in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, equal treatment, fine, inter-company agreement

C 108/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

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

requires a deterrent payment of a significant fee and is not
accompanied by publication of the criteria to be taken into
account when determining the value of used cars, rendering
that procedure ineffective.

(Case C-74/06)

(2006/C 108/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Appeal brought on 9 February 2006 by Britannia Alloys &
the judgment delivered on 29
Chemicals Ltd. against
November 2005 in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys &
Chemicals Ltd v Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafillou, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant asks the Court:

Parties

(Case C-76/06 P)

(2006/C 108/03)

Language of the case: English

— to declare that, by applying only a single criterion, for the
purpose of determining the taxable value of used cars
imported into Greek territory from another Member State,
as regards depreciation, based solely on the age of the
vehicle — in accordance with which a reduction of 7 % is
allowed for cars from six months to one year old or 14 %
for cars over one year old — which does not ensure that
the tax due does not exceed, even in certain cases, the
amount of the residual tax which has been incorporated in
the value of similar used vehicles which have already been
registered in that State, while the basis for calculating
depreciation is not made known to the public and examina-
tion of the cars by experts is subject to the payment of a
fee of EUR 300, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 90 of the EC Treaty;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The fixed scale of depreciation applied by the Hellenic
Republic to imported used cars does not reflect, with the
precision required by the case-law, their actual depreciation
and, consequently, it does not ensure that the registration
tax due does not exceed, even in certain cases, the amount
of the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar used
cars which have already been registered in Greece.

Appellant: Britannia Alloys & Chemicals Ltd. (represented by: S.
Mobley, H. Bardell and M. Commons, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment insofar as it dismisses the application

brought by Britannia in respect of the Decision;

— annul Article 3 of the Decision insofar as it pertains to Brit-

annia;

— in the alternative to (ii), modify Article 3 of the Decision as
it pertains to Britannia, so as to annul or substantially
reduce the fine imposed on Britannia therein;

— in the alternative to (ii) and (iii), refer the case back to the
CFI for judgment in accordance with the judgment of the
ECJ as to the law;

2. The procedure before the commission hearing objections is
not sufficient to remedy the defects in that basic system, it

— in any event, order that the Commission bear its own costs
and pay Britannia's costs relating to the proceedings before
the CFI and the ECJ.

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/3

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden, lodged on 10 February 2006 — Staat der
Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en
Sport) v 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antro-
posofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging
van Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and
4. Wala Nederland NV

1) the CFI infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No. 17/62/EEC
(‘Regulation 17’) (1) by holding that the Commission lawfully
applied the 10 % turnover cap under Article 15(2) to Britan-
nia's turnover for the business year ending 30 June 1996,
rather than the business year preceding the adoption of the
Decision;

(Case C-84/06)

(2006/C 108/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

2) the CFI infringed the principle of equality:

Referring court

a) by upholding the Commission's discrimination between
undertakings being in essentially the same situation by
applying the 10 % turnover cap, in the case of Britannia,
the Commission considers
to the last year of what
‘normal economic activity’, and, in the case of all other
undertakings to whom the Decision was addressed, to
the business year preceding the Decision; and

b) by upholding the Commission's Decision which discrimi-
nates against Britannia in relation to the year to which
the 10 % turnover cap is applicable in comparison with
its practice in other directly comparable cases;

3) the CFI infringed the principle of legal certainty:

a) by upholding the Commission's use of a year other than
the preceding business year in applying the turnover cap
in Article 15(2) of Regulation 17. Certainty is required as
to the absolute maximum level of penalty that might be
imposed; and

b) by interpreting Article 15(2) Regulation 17 in a way
which imposes a penalty which does not correspond to
the penalty laid down when the infringement was
committed, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of
undertakings.

(1) EEC Council: Regulation no 17: First Regulation implementing Arti-
cles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ 013, 21.02.1962, p. 204-211)

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Nether-
lands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Volksgezond-
heid, Welzijn en Sport) (State of the Netherlands (Ministry of
Public Health, Welfare and Sport))

Defendants: 1. Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antropo-
sofische Gezondheidszorg, 2. Nederlandse Vereniging van
Antroposofische Artsen, 3. Weleda Nederland NV and 4. Wala
Nederland NV

Questions referred

1. Does Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community
code relating to medicinal products for human use oblige
Member States to make anthroposophic medicinal products
which are not at the same time homeopathic medicinal
products subject to the requirements in respect of authorisa-
tion as set out in Title III, Chapter 1, of that directive?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the Nether-
lands statutory provision which makes those anthropo-
sophic medicinal products subject to the aforementioned
requirements in respect of authorisation an exception to the
prohibition under Article 28 EC which is authorised by
virtue of Article 30 EC?

(1) OJ L 311, p. 67.