Case C-411/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), common commercial policy, environmental protection, export of waste, intra-EU trade, legal basis, waste management

C 294/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The Commission considers that by basing the regulation solely
on article 175(1) EC and deleting article 133 EC as its second
legal basis, the European Parliament and the Council have acted
in infringement of the Treaty. In accordance with article 231(1)
EC, the annulment of the Regulation constitutes the appro-
priate remedy for this infringement.

(1) OJ L 80. p. 35.

(1) OJ L 190, p.1

Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v European Parliament, Council of
the European Union

(Case C-411/06)

(2006/C 294/59)

Language of the case: English

Appeal brought on 13 October 2006 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case
T-221/04 Belgium v Commission

(Case C-418/06 P)

(2006/C 294/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis, M. Huttunen, Agents)

Parties

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of
Union

the European

Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert,
Agent, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, lawyers)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on ship-
ments of waste;

— declare that the effects of the annulled regulation are defini-
tive pending the replacement of the regulation within a
reasonable period of time by an act adopted by the Euro-
pean Parliament and the Council on the correct legal basis
of Articles 175(1) and 133 EC and justified accordingly in
the recitals;

— order European Parliament, Council of the European Union

to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that its choice of a double legal basis
was decided according to the parameters established by the
case-law of the Court of Justice which are the aim and the
content of the act. It was based on the appreciation that the
regulation includes, both as regards the aims pursued and its
contents, two linked components, neither of which can be
regarded as secondary or indirect as compared with the other,
one falling within the scope of the common commercial policy
and the other within that of protection of the environment.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, upholding
the action brought by the present appellant, annul Commis-
sion Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004;

— in the alternative, set aside the judgment delivered by the
Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04
and, on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the
correction of € 9 322 809 applied by the Commission in
Decision 2004/136/EC to € 1 491 085;

— in the further alternative, set aside the judgment in Case T-
221/04 delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July
2006 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal.