Case C-155/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, health legislation, ionising radiation, occupational health, public health, radiation protection

C 121/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 14

December 2005 in Case T-369/03;

— declare the Applicants' requests in Case T-369/03 admis-

sible;

— rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to

the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

The applicants submit tha the CFI erred in law when it
considered that the applicants may challenge the contested
decision at national level.

5) Error in law in concluding that the applicants' action is

time-barred.

The applicants' submit that the action for damages is not
time-barred because the starting point for damages is, at the
earliest, the 1999 decision of the Commission not to declas-
sify, and, at the latest, the contested decision.

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

bear all costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-155/06)

(2006/C 121/14)

The applicants submit that the judgements of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside for the following reasons:

Language of the case: English

1) Inconsistency in reasoning and misapplication of the legal
test for admissibility applicable to the addressee of a binding
act producing legal effects.

The applicants submit that the Court of First Instance (here-
inafter the CFI) erred in law where it did not base its assess-
ment on the fact that the contested decision is a binding act
producing legal effects bringing about a distinct change in
the applicants' legal position.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

2) Misinterpretation of the regulatory framework applicable to
the applicants' data under directive

the assessment of
67/548/EEC.

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicants submit that the CFI erred in law where it
considered that the assessment of the applicants' data and
the Commission's final decision on the relevance of these
data as the basis for declassification is not an administrative
process that is subject to challenge.

3) Misinterpretation of the regulatory framework and of the

applicants' related rights under directive 67/548/EEC.

The applicants submit that te CFI erred in law when it
concluded that the applicants could not bring a challenge
on the grounds that the applicants were seeking to chal-
lenge a measure of general application.

4) Violation of the applicants' right to effective judicial protec-

tion.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, has failed to adopt all the final measures
necessary to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of the
Council 96/29 (1) Euratom, laying down basic safety stan-
dards for the protection of the health of workers and the
general public against the dangers arising from ionising
radiation, because of the lack of provisions allowing for
appropriate intervention in all situations of lasting exposure
to ionising radiation resulting from the after effects of a
radiological emergency or a past practice;

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/9

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Title IX of the Directive lays down the obligations of Member
States regarding the preparation and implementation of inter-
vention in cases of radiological emergency. Article 53 provides
that Member States are responsible for intervention in cases of
lasting exposure.

The United Kingdom authorities have acknowledged that their
existing legislation fails to effect complete transposition of the
directive, in so far as it does not provide for measures in all
cases where a situation of radioactive contamination is identi-
fied. The complaint which provided the impetus for the present
procedure exposed the fact that it is not possible to identify
and to take measures against lasting exposure for past activities
for which a licence had never been issued, intervention only
being possible where exposure can be linked to a given past
activity carried out on land where possible radioactive contami-
nation is now being identified.

(1) OJ L 314 , 4.12.1996, p. 20.

the Republic of Hungary,

the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic
of Lithuania,
the Republic of
Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and
the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on
which the European Union is founded, on the basis of
which the Czech Republic became a Member State of the
European Union from 1 May 2004, be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State may apply against an indivi-
dual a regulation which at the time of its application has
not been properly published in the Official Journal in the
official language of that Member State?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is the unenforce-
ability of the regulation concerned against an individual a
question of the interpretation or of the validity of Com-
munity law within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community?

3. Should the Court of Justice conclude that the present refer-
ence for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of a
Community act within the meaning of the judgment in Case
is Regulation No
[1987] ECR 4199,
314/85 Foto-Frost
2454/93 invalid in relation to the applicant and its dispute
with the customs authorities of the Czech Republic on the
ground of the absence of proper publication in the Official
Journal of the EU in accordance with Article 58 of the Act
concerning the conditions of accession?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud
v Ostravě lodged on 24 March 2006 — Skoma-Lux, s.r.o. v
Celní ředitelství Olomouc

(Case C-161/06)

(2006/C 121/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 29
March 2006 — The Queen on the application of Northern
Foods Plc v The Secretary of State for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs

Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Associa-
tion

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skoma-Lux, s.r.o.

Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc

(Case C-169/06)

(2006/C 121/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Questions referred

Parties to the main proceedings

1. May Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia,

Applicant: The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc,