Case C-266/06 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, control of restrictive practices, fine, infringement of EU law, organic acid

C 190/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

In this case, therefore, the possible environmental impact has
not been sufficiently investigated, and the Commission has no
information that the effects of burning dangerous waste have
been investigated. The defendant should have carried out
renewed full public participation after the change in the appli-
cation for authorisation, but failed to do so.

The Commission takes the view that the Federal Republic of
Germany has thereby infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with
Annex I, point 9, of Directive 85/37/EEC.

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringe-
ments of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1), the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tion under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

The Commission does not accept the defendant's argument
that, under the current version of the directive, an environ-
mental assessment is not compulsory even where dangerous
waste is burned, on the ground that,
in this case, the main
purpose of the plant's operation is not waste disposal but the
utilisation of waste. Even if Annex I of the current version does
refer only to ‘disposal’,
it would be irreconcilable with the
essential purpose to exclude projects with obvious environ-
mental effect from systematic examination. Waste utilisation
procedures are not necessarily less environmentally threatening
than disposal procedures; as is apparent in this case, it depends
on the particular type of treatment. The Commission takes the
view that the term 'waste-disposal' in point 9 of Annex I to the
regulation covers both the utilisation and disposal of waste.
The contrary legal interpretation of the defendant would lead
to a decisive step backwards in relation to the present legal
situation, as installations for the utilisation of waste fall entirely
outside the scope of the directive.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides:
‘The
sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this
Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’.
Under Article 19, the regulation entered into force on 17
February 2005. According to the information available to the
Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet met
the obligation to lay down sanctions, in the event of infringe-
ment of the regulation, which are effective, proportionate and
dissuasive.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against
the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02
Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the Council of the European Union

Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-264/06)

(2006/C 190/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Case C-266/06 P)

(2006/C 190/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Degussa AG (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl
and C. Steinle, lawyers,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Council of the European Union

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Forms of order sought

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

1. Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the
appellant.

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

2. Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002
in so far as it affects the

(Case C.37.519 — Methionin)
appellant.

Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Centre de traduction des
organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)

In the alternative, annulment or reduction of
imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision;

the fine

3 In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to
the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance
with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

4. The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the
Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant makes four pleas on appeal:

— First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the prin-
ciple of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to
penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the
unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

— Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts
in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and
infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo)
and the basic right to a fair hearing.

— Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the prin-
ciple of proportionality (in the form of the principle that
punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting
the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even
though the infringement had little impact on the price of
methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty
to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons.

— Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addi-
tion to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to
have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the
difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and
thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment.

(1) OJ 2006 C 131, p. 37.

(Case C-269/06)

(2006/C 190/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.-F. Pasquier and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant: Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union europé-
enne (CDT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the CDT's decision not to pay employer's contribu-

tions to the Community pension scheme;

— order the CDT to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

‘agencies
Under Article 83a(2) of the new Staff Regulations,
which do not receive a subsidy from the general budget of the
European Union shall pay into that budget the entire amount
of the contributions needed to finance the scheme.’

On that basis, the Commission requested that CDT pay into the
budget sums corresponding to the employer's contribution to
the pension scheme for 2005 and subsequent years.

The CDT nonetheless refused, denying that
it was a self-
financed agency. The CDT claims that it should be regarded as
a subsidised agency. According to the Commission, however, it
is not in dispute that the CDT has received no operating subsi-
dies from the general budget of the European Union since
1998;
it has received merely a remuneration commensurate
with its services to inter-institutional cooperation in the form
of translation.