Case C-397/06: Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Estonia, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, social dialogue, worker consultation, worker information

C 281/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

The appellant is, and at all material times has been, the owner
of the MFV ‘Westward Isle’. It therefore cannot be said to have
lost the interest it unquestionably had at the commencement of
its action for the annulment of decision 2003/245 in so far as
it impacted upon its application for safety tonnage in respect of
the proposed MFV ‘Westward Isle’;

The Court of First Instance erred in finding that the appellant
was deprived of standing to seek the annulment of decision
2003/245 by reason of the steps it took to mitigate the loss
and damage sustained as a result of that measure.

(1) OJ L 90, P. 48

Appeal brought on 14 September 2006 by Larry Murphy
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-
218/03 to T-240/03: Cathal Boyle and others v Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-379/06 P)

(2006/C 281/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

length overall as it applied to the safety capacity application
for a proposed new RSW vessel
to replace the MFV
Menhaden.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

By determining the appellant's interest in bringing the proceed-
the adoption of decision
ings by reference to the date of
2003/245 and not the date on which the application was
lodged the Court of First Instance applied an incorrect legal
test;

The Court made a substantive error apparent from the docu-
ments submitted to it, namely as to the appellant's ownership
of the MFV ‘Menhaden’ at all times material to the application;

The finding that the appellant was not individually concerned
by decision 2003/245 ‘since the vessels in question are ficti-
tious’ has no basis in law and is, moreover, contradicted by the
reasoning of the Court of First Instance in its judgment;

The appellant is, and at all material times has been, the owner
of the MFV ‘Menhaden’. It therefore cannot be said to have lost
the interest it unquestionably had at the commencement of its
action for the annulment of decision 2003/245 in so far as it
impacted upon its application for safety tonnage in respect of
the proposed MFV ‘Menhaden’;

The Court of First Instance erred in finding that the appellant
was deprived of standing to seek the annulment of decision
2003/245 by reason of the steps it took to mitigate the loss
and damage sustained as a result of that measure.

Appellant: Larry Murphy (represented by: P. Gallagher SC, A.
Collins SC, D. Barry, Solicitor)

(1) OJ L90, P.48

Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland, Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of June
13, 2006 in so far as it dismissed the application in Case T-
236/03, Larry Murphy v. Commission for the annulment of
Commission Decision 2003/245/EC (1) of 4 April 2003 on
the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP
IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety,
navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working
conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall
as it applied to the safety capacity application for proposed
new RSW vessel to replace the MFV Menhaden.

— Annul Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003
on the requests received by the Commission to increase
MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on
safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and
working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in

Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-397/06)

(2006/C 281/42)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and H. Kundla, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/27

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to fulfil the obligation under Direc-
tive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general frame-
work for informing and consulting employees in the Euro-
pean Community (1) to notify all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary for transposition of the
directive, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive;

— order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 23 March 2005.

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive
96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards invol-
ving dangerous substances (1), or in any event by having
failed to communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2003/105/EC
expired on 30 June 2005.

(1) OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29.

(1) OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97.

Action brought on 3 October 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-407/06)

(2006/C 281/43)

Language of the case: French

Order of the President of the Court of 14 July 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-416/05) (1)

(2006/C 281/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.