Case C-332/06 P: Appeal brought on 1 August 2006 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, General Court (EU), Greece, action for annulment (EU), common agricultural policy, operational expenditure (EU), public stock, rice

C 224/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Action brought on 27 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-330/06)

(2006/C 224/56)

Language of the case: English

Form of order sought

— Hold the appeal admissible;

Parties

— Set aside or alter the judgment of

the Court of First

Instance;

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren, Agent)

— Grant the appeal,

in accordance with the form of order

sought;

Defendant: Ireland

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2001/86/EC (1) of 8 October 2001 supplementing
the Statute for a European company with regard to the
involvement of employees, or in any event by failing to
communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 8 October 2004.

(1) OJ L 294, P. 22

Appeal brought on 1 August 2006 by the Hellenic
Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber) on 20 June 2006 in Case
T-251/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-332/06 P)

(2006/C 224/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos,
State Legal Adviser, and I. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal
Service)

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1st ground of appeal: The Court of First Instance misinter-
preted the fifth subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
No 729/70 and subparagraph (a) of the fifth subparagraph of
Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, in conjunction with
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95 as amended by Article
1(3) of Regulation No 2245/99, because:

(a) the Commission's communication did not

satisfy the
requirements of Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 and
therefore could not constitute the written communication
for the purposes of that article or the starting point for
determining the 24-month period prescribed by Regula-
tions Nos 729/70 and 1258/1999. Thus, on the basis of
the foregoing provisions, the Commission lacked temporal
competence to impose financial corrections because it did
not comply with the procedure, laid down in the regula-
tions, which requires bilateral discussion including with
regard to the amount of the impending correction, the
assessment of which must be included in the letter under
Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 which sets off the 24-
the Commission rejected
month period.
expenditure referable to a time preceding the 24-month
period;

In any event

(b) the Court of First Instance made the application of Regu-
lation No 2245/1999 retroactive in accepting that it covers
expenditure not only of the financial year 2000 but also of
earlier financial years.

2nd ground of appeal: The Court of First Instance misinter-
preted and applied incorrectly the principles of proportionality
(force majeure) and of the protection of legitimate expectations
with regard to the delay in bringing rice into intervention
storage because:

(a) the exceeding by nine days of the time-limit for bringing
the entire quantity of rice into storage, which was due to a
strike without notice by drivers of lorries for public use,
amounts to a classic case of force majeure, responsibility
for which cannot be attributed to Greece, whose competent
authorities did everything possible to bring in the entire
quantity of rice despite the unnotified strike;

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/31

(b) the fact that the Commission was informed immediately
and timeously, before the time-limit expired,
the
bringing of rice into storage was delayed because of the
strike and the fact that Commission did not reply immedi-
ately created justified expectations that
the Commission
had no objection to the delay of a few days.

that

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-339/06)

(2006/C 224/59)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Cattabriga, Agent)

(Case C-333/06)

(2006/C 224/58)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.R. Vidal Puig and K. Simonsson, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

amending

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary
to comply with
Commission Directive 2004/116/EC (1) of 23 December
2004
to Council Directive
82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guillier-
mondii or, in any event, by failing to communicate those
provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that direc-
tive;

the Annex

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

the European Parliament and of

— Declare that, by failing to lay down the sanctions for infrin-
gements of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004
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 delays of flights, and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), the Kingdom of Sweden
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16 of the
directive;

— order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 requires the Member
States to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanc-
tions for infringements of the provisions of the regulation.

According to the information available to the Commission, the
Kingdom of Sweden — by failing to lay down sanctions for
infringements of the provisions of Article 14 of the regulation
and nearly one and a half years after its entry into force — has
not yet introduced a complete system of sanctions for infringe-
ments of the regulation.

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30
June 2005.

(1) OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 81.

Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2006 —
Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-133/04) (1)

(2006/C 224/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.