Case C-459/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  30 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Part XII — Protection and preservation of the marine environment — Dispute-settlement system provided for under that convention — Arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that system by Ireland against the United Kingdom — Dispute relating to the MOX plant at Sellafield (United Kingdom) — Irish Sea — Articles 292 EC and 193 EA — Undertaking not to submit a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other than those provided for by the Treaty — Mixed agreement — Community competence — Articles 10 EC and 192 EA — Duty of cooperation)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, disclosure of information, personal data, protection of privacy, telecommunications

C 165/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Diane Barker

Defendant: London Borough of Bromley

Intervener: First Secretary of State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Inter-
pretation of Articles 1(2) and 2(1) 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 —
No assessment before the grant of consent for a project likely
to have effects on the environment — Obligation to subject the
the
project
Crystal Palace site for leisure purposes

to subsequent assessment — Development of

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent, and by J. Flynn
QC)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2003 in Case T-224/00 Archer
Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients
Ltd v Commission dismissing in part an application for annul-
ment of, or a reduction in the fine imposed by, Commission
Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

1. Dismisses the appeal;

1. Classification of a decision as a ‘development consent’ within the
meaning of Article 1(2) 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 must be carried out pursuant
to national law in a manner consistent with Community law.

2. Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337 are to be interpreted
as requiring an environmental impact assessment to be carried out
if, in the case of grant of consent comprising more than one stage,
it becomes apparent, in the course of the second stage, that the
project is likely to have significant effects on the environment by
virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location.

(1) OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006 —
Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland
Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-397/03 P) (1)

(Appeals — Competition — Cartels — Synthetic lysine
market — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines
— Non-retroactivity — Non bis in idem principle — Equal
treatment — Turnover which may be taken into account)

(2006/C 165/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

2. Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Archer Daniels Midland

Ingredients Ltd to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-459/03) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Part XII —
Protection and preservation of the marine environment —
Dispute-settlement system provided for under that convention
— Arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that
system by Ireland against the United Kingdom — Dispute
relating to the MOX plant at Sellafield (United Kingdom) —
Irish Sea — Articles 292 EC and 193 EA — Undertaking
not to submit a dispute relating to the interpretation or
application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other
than those provided for by the Treaty — Mixed agreement —
Community competence — Articles 10 EC and 192 EA —
Duty of cooperation)

(2006/C 165/04)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Appellants: Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland
Ingredients Ltd (represented by: C.O. Lenz, Rechtsanwalt, E.
Batchelor, L. Martin Alegi and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

Intervener in support of the applicant: The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and C.
Gibbs Agents, and by R. Plender QC)

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)