Case C-185/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on  14/04/2006  — The Queen on the application of British Telecommunications plc v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interest, interpretation of the law, payment, tax rebate

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/9

Action brought on 18 April 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v
Council of the European Union

3. Infringement of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 2371/2002 (2)

(Case C-184/06)

(2006/C 154/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

The failure to allocate to Spain quotas which constitute new
fishing opportunities distributed for the first time after expiry
of the transitional period laid down in the Act of Accession
infringes the above provision.

(1) OJ L 16 of 20.1.2006, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on
the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358 of 31.12.2002, p.
59).

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad,
Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 14/
04/2006 — The Queen on the application of British Tele-
communications plc v Commissioners for HM Revenue
and Customs

Form of order sought

— annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22
December 2005 (1) fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities
and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are
required, in so far as it does not allocate specific quotas to
the Spanish fishing fleet in the Community waters of the
North Sea and the Baltic Sea;

Referring court

(Case C-185/06)

(2006/C 154/20)

Language of the case: English

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

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination

The Kingdom of Spain believes that, in so far as the contested
regulation does not allocate to Spain quotas in the Community
waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, it infringes the prin-
ciple of non-discrimination since, upon expiry of the transi-
tional period laid down in the Act of Accession, the other
Member States are granted the right of access to those waters
and their resources, whereas the Kingdom of Spain is granted
only the right of access to waters.

2. Incorrect interpretation of the Act of Accession of Spain

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: British Telecommunications plc

Defendant: Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

1. Does the European law right to the repayment of impro-
perly levied sums by tax authorities, referred to by the ECJ
in paragraph 84 of the Judgment in Metallgesellschaft v. CIR
(Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98), apply equally to the
repayment of sums paid voluntarily by a taxpayer to a tax
authority in error (where the tax authority did not contri-
bute to that error and had no reason to be aware of it), or is
it a matter for domestic law?

In regulating the transitional period for Spain concerning fish-
eries, the Act of Accession does not distinguish between access
to waters and access to resources. Moreover, the provisions of
the Act of Accession must be interpreted in the light of their
context and purpose.

2. If European law does confer a right to the repayment of
such sums in such circumstances, does it also give rise to a
right to interest on the amounts repaid, or is it a matter for
domestic law, as suggested by paragraph 86 of the Judg-
ment of the ECJ in Metallgesellschaft?

C 154/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

3. If European law does confer a right to interest on the repay-
ment of such sums in such circumstances is that a right to
simple interest or to compound interest?

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-187/06)

(2006/C 154/22)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 18 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

Parties

(Case C-186/06)

(2006/C 154/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.-P. Keppenne, H. Van Vliet, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents, acting
as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

— declare that, by failing to execute within the prescribed
period the Decision of 24 April 2002 (C(2002)1341 final)
on the State aid implemented by Belgium for the Beaulieu
group (Ter Lembeek International) (State Aid C 36/01, ex
NN 73/00) (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 of
the EC Treaty and Articles 2 and 3 of that Decision;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— a declaration that,

in relation to the plan to irrigate the
irrigable area of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal, the Kingdom
of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2,
3 and 4(1) and (4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2
April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

— an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States may not take advantage of their failure to
designate Zones in accordance with the Directive in order to
perform actions in those areas that may endanger its objectives
and when, as in this case, the Member State has not designated
protected areas where it ought to have done, the levels of
protection required in an area of importance for birds are those
laid down in Article 4(4) of the Directive.

In consequence, the Commission takes the view that, by having
provided for and implemented the procedures leading to the
authorisation of the Segarra-Garrigues Canal irrigation plan, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Arti-
cles 2, 3 and 4(1) and (4) of the Directive.

(1) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1

Nearly four years have passed since the Belgian authorities
were notified of the Decision, yet the disputed aid has not, to
date, actually been reimbursed by the beneficiary. The latter is
still enjoying the benefits of using the funds, which is exactly
what the Decision intended to put an end to.

(1) OJ 2002 L 296, p.60

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Bruxelles lodged on 21 April 2006 — Belgacom Mobile
SA v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommu-
nications

(Case C-190/06)

(2006/C 154/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles