Case C-98/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  4 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Project carried out without prior application for development consent or assessment — Action inadmissible)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, impact study, project evaluation, town and country planning

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/3

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: R. Brady and D. O'Hagan,
Agents, and by P. Sreenan and E. Fitzsimons, SC, P. Sands QC,
and N. Hyland, BL)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, acting as Agent, D. Elvin QC
and J. Maurici, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (repre-
sented by: K. Wistrand, Agent)

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Bringing of an
action by Ireland against the United Kingdom before the Arbi-
tral Tribunal established under the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea — Infringement of the exclusive jurisdic-
tion of the European Court of Justice — Breach of the duty of
cooperation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by instituting dispute-settlement proceedings against
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning
the MOX plant located at Sellafield (United Kingdom), Ireland
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Articles 10 EC and
292 EC and under Articles 192 EA and 193 EA;

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own respective
costs.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2006 —
the European Communities v United
Commission of

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-508/03) (1)

of

expectations

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissi-
bility — Subject-matter of the case — Jurisdiction of national
courts — Action devoid of purpose — Legal certainty and
developers — Directive
legitimate
85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects
on the environment — White City development project —
Crystal Palace development project — Projects falling within
Annex II to Directive 85/337 — Obligation to assess projects
likely to have significant effects on the environment —
Burden of proof — Transposition of Directive 85/337 into
national law — Grant of consent comprising more than one
stage)

(2006/C 165/05)

Language of the case: English

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect
implementation of Articles 2(1), 4(2), 5(2) and 8 of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment — Failure to carry out an impact assessment in respect of
urban development projects at White City and Crystal Palace

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law by
incorrectly transposing into domestic law Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
ment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3
March 1997, as a result of the national rules under which, in the
case of outline planning permission with a requirement of subse-
quent approval of the reserved matters, an assessment may be
carried out only at the initial stage of granting such permission,
and not at the later reserved matters stage;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

United Kingdom to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-98/04) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC —
Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environ-
ment — Project carried out without prior application for
development consent or assessment — Action inadmissible)

(2006/C 165/06)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Simonetti and X. Lewis, Agents)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Shotter and F. Simonetti, Agents)

C 165/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: K. Manji, and subsequently by M.
Bethell, Agents, and by P. Sales and J. Maurici, Barristers)

Re:

Infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4 of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ
1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3
March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Consent given without
assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for management of
special investment funds — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

1. The concept of ‘management’ of special investment funds in Article
13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment has its own independent meaning in
Community law whose content the Member States may not alter.

2. Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 is to be interpreted
as meaning that the concept of ‘management of special investment
funds’ referred to in that provision covers the services performed by
a third-party manager in respect of the administrative manage-
ment of the funds, if, viewed broadly, they form a distinct whole,
and are specific to, and essential for, the management of those
funds.

On the other hand, services corresponding to the functions of a
depositary, such as those set out in Articles 7(1) and (3) and
14(1) and (3) of Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December
1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment
in
transferable securities (UCITS), are not covered by that concept.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and
Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Abbey
National plc (with the Inscape Investment Fund as joined
party) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-169/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 146, 29.05.2004.

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13B(d)(6) — Management
of special investment funds — Exemption — Meaning of
‘management’ — Functions of a depositary — Delegation of
administrative management function)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

(2006/C 165/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, London

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-221/04) (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora — Protection of species — Hunting using
stopped snares in private hunting areas — Castilla y León)

(2006/C 165/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Applicants: Abbey National plc (with the Inscape Investment
Fund as joined party)

Defendants: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Parties

Re:

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Valero Jordana and M. van Beek, Agents)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal,
London — Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(6) of Sixth Council

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno,
Agent)