Case C-187/06: Action brought on  12 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid to industry, glass industry, packaging

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