Case C-363/06 P: Appeal brought on 6 September 2006 by Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana against the order made on 5 July 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-357/05 Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, EU financing arrangements, European Commission, General Court (EU), Spain, action for annulment (EU), appeal

C 261/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22
June 2006 in Case T-150/05 dismissing the appellants'
application as inadmissible;

— declare the application in Case T-150/05 admissible;

— give judgment in the case and grant the principal and alter-
native forms of order sought by the parties who were appli-
cants before the Court of First Instance and thus allow the
application in Case T-150/05 in full;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court
of First Instance and in the proceedings now before the
Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Instance considered that

The Court of First
the contested
Commission Decision 2005/101/EC (1) was not of direct
concern to the applicants within the meaning of Article 230
EC. The decision dismissing the application as inadmissible is
wrong in law and should be set aside on the following
grounds:

were imposed in the form of the prohibition on allowing
land to deteriorate and the requirement to submit to an
assessment. It was a decision by which the Natura 2000
status of the sites was definitively decided.

(1) OJ 2005 L 40, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.

Appeal brought on 6 September 2006 by Comunidad
Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana against
the order made on 5 July 2006 by the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-357/05 Comunidad
Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad Valenciana v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-363/06 P)

(2006/C 261/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

1. Direct effects on legal position

Parties

The Court misinterpreted Article 6 of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) by considering that
the Commission's Decision had no direct legal effects on the
applicants. The appellants consider, however, that the deci-
sion directly affects their legal position because it

(i) definitively determines a site's conservation area status;

(ii) prohibits landowners from allowing their property to

deteriorate;

(iii) lays down a requirement

that plans or projects be

assessed.

Appellant: Comunidad Autónoma de Valencia — Generalidad
Valenciana (represented by: J. V. Sánchez-Tarazaga Marcelino,
letrado, and C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas,
abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— declare that the present case is admissible and well founded;

2. Automatic direct effects

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July

The Court misinterpreted Article 6 by taking the view that
for the Commission's decision to have legal effects measures
of the Member State are required, and these are discre-
tionary. In the appellants' view, parts of the Commission's
decision have legal effects, however, for instance the prohi-
bition on allowing property to deteriorate and the require-
ment that plans and projects be assessed, which take effect
automatically without implementing measures on the part
of the Member State.

3. Lack of effective legal remedies

2006;

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance so that the
application originally filed is declared admissible and the
proceedings continued;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In European Community law the principle of audi alteram
partem applies in administrative and judicial proceedings.
Under that principle the parties must in practice have a
right of appeal or other effective legal remedy against deci-
sions. If the right to bring an action is denied to them, the
appellants at no stage in these proceedings have a possibility
of challenging the authorities' decision by which their land
was included in the Natura 2000 network and restrictions

This appeal is based on the following pleas in law:

The Court of First Instance erred in law: it infringed the EC
Treaty, in particular Article 19 of the Protocol annexed to the
Treaty establishing the European Community on the Statute of
the Court of Justice (which, in accordance with Article 311 EC,
forms an integral part thereof) which lays down the criteria
governing the legal representation of the parties before the
Community courts.

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/15

It
infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to
grant the applicant a period in which to put the application in
order, in breach of Article 44(6) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance, misapplying Article 111 thereof to
the present case and failing to hear the applicant before
declaring the action inadmissible, in breach of the principle of
the right to be heard which applies in all proceedings.

It infringed the principle of non-discrimination by denying the
legal representative (letrado) of the Generalidad Valenciana a
right which has been undisputed in previous cases in respect of
representatives who have appeared before the Community
courts in that same capacity.

Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-369/06)

(2006/C 261/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: T. Scharf and K. Gross, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

Form of order sought

(Case C-367/06)

(2006/C 261/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

— declare that, by failing to transpose Commission Directive
2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive
80/723/EEC on the transparency of
relations
between Member States and public undertakings (1),
the
Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
both Article 2 of the Directive and the third paragraph of
Article 249 EC;

financial

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrell, agent)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive expired
on 31 July 2001.

(1) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 75.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 3rd June 2003 (1) on the activities and supervi-
sion of institutions for occupational retirement provision,
or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the
its
Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
obligations under the Directive; and

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-370/06)

(2006/C 261/28)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Language of the case: Portuguese

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 23 September 2005.

Parties

(1) OJ L 235, 23.09.2003, p. 10 - 21

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and P. Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic