Case C-330/06: Action brought on 27 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European company, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, exchange of information, labour law, national implementing measure, worker consultation, worker participation

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;