Case C-441/06: Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, control of State aid, redemption, telecommunications

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/9

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2005/15/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the
working time of persons performing mobile road transport
activities or, in any event, by failing to communicate such
measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2002/15/EC into
domestic law expired on 23 March 2005.

Action brought on 24 October 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-440/06)

(2006/C 310/16)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

urban waste water entering collecting systems is subject to
secondary treatment (or an equivalent treatment) within the
meaning of Article 2(8) of the Directive.

This case concerns the breach of two specific obligations on
the part of the Hellenic Republic, provided for in Articles 3 and
4 of Directive 91/271/EEC: first, the requirement that there
should be a collecting system for urban waste water by 31
December 2000 in all agglomerations with a population of
more than 15 000 before 31 December 2000 in accordance
with Article 3 of the Directive; second, the requirement that all
urban waste water discharged into collecting systems should be
to secondary treatment by 31 December 2000 in
subject
agglomerations with a population of more than 15 000.

By the end of the period laid down by the Commission in the
statement of reasons in its opinion (13 September 2005), 24
agglomerations in Greece did not have a collecting system for
urban waste water and/or a treatment system for urban waste
water as required by the Directive.

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40.

Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-441/06)

(2006/C 310/17)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Konstantinidis)

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1)
concerning urban waste-water
treatment by failing to
ensure that 24 agglomerations are provided with collecting
systems for urban waste water meeting the requirements of
Article 3 and/or urban waste water treatment systems satis-
fying the requirements of Article 4;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 3 of Directive 91/271/EEC requires Member States to
ensure that all agglomerations of a certain size are provided
with collecting systems for urban waste water. Article 4 of the
Directive also provides that Member States are to ensure that

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to give effect, within the prescribed
period, to the Commission Decision of 2 August 2004 on
the State aid implemented by France for France Télécom
(State Aid C 13/b/2003) (1), the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that deci-
sion, the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10
EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

C 310/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pointing out, as a preliminary point, that the cancellation of
unlawful aid by means of its recovery is the logical conse-
quence of the finding that it is unlawful, the applicant invokes
the defendant's failure to observe that case-law inasmuch as,
more than two years after the adoption of the decision in ques-
tion, no repayment of the aid granted to France Télécom has
yet been made and no repayment procedure has even been
commenced at national
level. Consequently, several essential
provisions of Community law have been infringed, in particular
Article 10 EC and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.

The applicant notes in that respect that, pursuant to the case-
law of the Court, no provision of Community law requires the
Commission to fix the exact amount of the unlawful aid to be
recovered. It is sufficient that the decision ordering the recovery
of aid declared incompatible with the common market includes
information enabling the addressee to work that amount out
himself, without undue difficulty. If that decision were, none
the less, to cause practical problems, the Commission and the
Member State in question would be required, in any event, to
work together, pursuant to the obligation of genuine coopera-
tion set out in Article 10 EC, in order to overcome those diffi-
culties.

That being so, the applicant contests the defendant's claim that
it is impossible to give a sufficiently reliable estimate of the
amount of aid to be recovered, particularly inasmuch as the
decision of 2 August 2004, in its grounds, refers expressly to

two estimates provided by the French authorities during the
administrative procedure, on the basis of which the sum of the
range to be recovered was fixed by the Commission in its deci-
sion. It thus follows clearly from that decision that the aid to
be recovered is equivalent
to the difference between the
amount of business tax that France Télécom should have paid
pursuant to ordinary law and the amount of tax actually paid
by that company.

The applicant also observes that, during the recovery proce-
dure, the Commission made several specific proposals as to the
amount of aid to be recovered even though, pursuant to the
case-law of the Court, it is in general primarily a matter for the
Member State concerned to make those proposals in the event
of difficulties. Furthermore, the defendant never put forward
any suggestions seeking to improve the Commission's propo-
sals.

The applicant concludes by observing that it also follows from
the case-law that the fact that there is an appeal against a
Commission decision declaring aid to be unlawful does not
suspend the obligation to implement that decision and there-
fore to secure repayment of the unlawful and incompatible aid,
except in the event of temporary measures granted by the
Court of First Instance under Article 242 EC.

(1) OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30.