Case C-167/06 P: Appeal brought on  29 March 2006  by Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas, Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa, Alexandra Dokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoi Dimitriou, Petros Bolosis, Despina Bolosi, Konstantinos Bolosis and Thomas Bolosis against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on  13 January 2006  in Case T-42/04 Komninou and Others v Commission
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), complaint to the Commission, indemnification, infringement of EU law, water treatment

C 131/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Appeal brought on 29 March 2006 by Ermioni Komninou,
Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas, Aris-
tidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa,
Alexandra Dokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoi Dimitriou, Petros
Bolosis, Despina Bolosi, Konstantinos Bolosis and Thomas
Bolosis against the order made by the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/
04 Komninou and Others v Commission

of Directive 85/337, in relation to the design and construction
of a biological sewage treatment plant at a place known as
Varka.

They have submitted that
the Commission's overall and
continuous conduct in their regard amounts to a clear case of
maladministration. In particular:

(Case C-167/06 P)

(2006/C 131/64)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos
Pappas, Vasilios Pappas, Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa,
Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa, Alexandra Dokou, Fotios Dimi-
triou, Zoi Dimitriou, Petros Bolosis, Despina Bolosi, Konstan-
tinos Bolosis and Thomas Bolosis (represented by: G. Dellis,
dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Allow the present application;

— set aside the order appealed against, made by the Court of

First Instance on 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/04;

— rule on the appellants' application of 10 February 2004,
allow the application and order the European Commission
to pay to each of the appellants the sum of EUR 200 000
together with statutory interest at the rate of 8 % from
delivery of the Court's judgment until payment;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs of the appellants at
first instance and on appeal and, in the alternative, should
the present appeal be dismissed, order the defendant to pay
the costs or, at any rate, each party to bear his own costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal in Case C-167/06 has been brought by 15 appel-
lants, who reside in Parga (Prefecture of Preveza, Greece),
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities of 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/04. That order
dismissed as clearly unfounded their action for compensation
of 10 February 2004 brought against the Commission of the
European Communities.

By their application of 10 February 2004 to the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, the appellants brought
proceedings against
the Commission for compensation in
respect of the non-material damage suffered by them by reason
of the Commission's conduct following their complaint of 7
July 2005 alleging that the Greek authorities had infringed
Community environmental law, in particular Articles 3 and 5

1. At an initial stage, the Commission (i) did not inform them
in good time of progress with regard to the complaint,
concealed information and misled them as to the progress
of their case, (ii) rejected their complaint with a statement
of reasons clearly contrary to Community environmental
law and the Court's case-law and (iii) did not observe basic
rules of impartiality in relation to the handling of the case
by its officials.

2. Subsequently, after the aforementioned matters had been
confirmed by decision of the Ombudsman, the Commission
failed to take basic measures to make good the foregoing
forms of maladministration. What is more, it has persisted
in treating the appellants in a manner that is dilatory and
lacks transparency: first, it has refused to admit the errors
made by it to the appellants' detriment and, second, it has
refused (both at the time when the action for compensation
was brought and now) to examine the substance of their
complaint and to ensure that Community law is interpreted
uniformly and correctly.

The appellants have submitted in particular that, irrespective of
whether or not the Commission's position on the application
of Directive 85/337 is correct, the Commission has, by its
conduct, flagrantly infringed its fundamental obligations to the
appellants as European citizens and as persons subject
to
administrative authorities:
in particular, the
principles of good administration, impartiality, legal certainty
and the protection of legitimate expectations, while it has also
in fact infringed the right of complaint laid down for European
citizens.

it has infringed,

By the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance, without
examining the admissibility of the action for compensation,
applied Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure and held (i) that
the action manifestly lacked any foundation in law and (ii) that
it was not necessary for the proceedings before it to continue,
in particular by means of the exchange of further pleadings and
an oral procedure.
therefore dismissed the action in its
entirety and ordered the appellants to bear not only their own
costs but also the Commission's. Notice of the order was given
to the lawyer acting for the appellants in the present case by
registered letter of 25 January 2006.

It

The appellants consider the order to be wrong in law for the
purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 225(1) of the
EC Treaty and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
the appeal against it, provided for in those articles and in
Article 56 of the Statute, is admissible and has been brought
within the time-limit and on the basis of a clear legal interest.
In their appeal, the appellants seek to show the errors of law in
the order.

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/35

Those errors concern:

Form of order sought

(i) the fact that the Court of First Instance failed completely to
examine the appellants' pleas and arguments relating to
infringement of the right of complaint, as enshrined as an
aspect of European citizenship;

(ii) the fact

that

the Court of First

Instance in any event
distorted the sense of the Ombudsman's decision of 18
July 2002, which constituted the most relevant item of
evidence relied upon by the appellants in their action, or
at any rate erred in the legal characterisation of that item
of evidence;

(iii) the fact that the Court of First Instance interpreted and
applied incorrectly the principles of good administration,
impartiality and the protection of legitimate expectations,
in certain instances distorted the sense of the evidence and
in any event erred in the legal characterisation of the facts
of the action which relate to the infringement of those
principles;

(iv) the fact that the Court of First Instance failed to examine
the action for compensation or, in any event, examined it
in a deficient manner, inasmuch as it treated the Commis-
sion's conduct in question as a collection of isolated events
separate from one another and not in an overall manner,
despite the fact that the infringement of Community rules
relied upon by the appellants and the damage suffered by
them result principally from the overall stance of
the
Commission over a period of eight years.

More generally, the appellants consider that the Court of First
Instance failed to draw the correct conclusions from the funda-
mental rule that the Commission is responsible for ensuring
that procedures progress in a correct and lawful manner and in
the event of error must bear the financial burden of maladmin-
istration. Furthermore, failure to observe the fundamental rules
governing authorities' conduct can give rise to non-material
harm in respect of which citizens may seek reparation and
damages.

Action brought on 31 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-172/06)

(2006/C 131/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

— Declare that, by making the grant of public aid to economic
operators who wish to market in Spain solar captors manu-
factured and lawfully marketed in another Member State or
manufactured in a country which is a signatory to the
Agreement on the European Economic Area subject to the
those captors must have a certificate of
condition that
conformity which satisfies the requirements laid down in
the national rules and, for that purpose, to undergo in a
specially designated national
laboratory for tests already
carried out in that State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC
Treaty and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement on the
European Economic Area;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Spanish provisions on the conditions of access to public
aid for solar captors from another Member State or a country
which is a signatory to the Agreement on the European
Economic Area are contrary to the fundamental principle of
free movement of goods and cannot be justified for any of the
reasons of general interest laid down in Article 30 of the EC
Treaty or by any of the overriding requirements recognised by
the case-law of the Court of Justice.

Appeal brought on 5 April 2006 by Stadtwerke Schwä-
bisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadt-
werke Uelzen GmbH against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 26 January
2006 in Case T-92/02 Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH,
Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen
GmbH v Commission of
the European Communities
supported by E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, RWE Power AG,
EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG and Hamburgische
Electricitäts-Werke AG

(Case C-176/06 P)

(2006/C 131/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellants: Stadtwerke Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke
Tübingen GmbH and Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH (represented
by: D. Fouquet and P. Becker, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, E.ON Kernkraft GmbH, RWE Power AG, EnBW
Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Hamburgische Electricitäts-
Werke AG