Case C-417/06 P: Appeal brought on 12 October 2006 by the Italian Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU initiative, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), commitment of expenditure, judicial proceedings

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/7

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

expires one month after both parties have performed their
obligations under the agreement in full?

is it

a) In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
where in a Member State both public and private milk-
quota sales points transfer delivery reference quantities
for consideration,
the case that when assessing
whether the treatment of a Milchquoten-Verkaufsstelle of a
body governed by public law as a non-taxable person
would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’
within the meaning of
the second subparagraph of
Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive the relevant geographic
market is the transfer area defined by the Member State?

b) When assessing whether the treatment of a public Milch-
quoten-Verkaufsstelle as a non-taxable person would lead
to such ‘significant distortions of competition’ is only the
normal case of transfers independently of the land (by a
Verkaufsstelle) to be taken into consideration, or are other
types of transfers independently of the land (by farmers
as taxable persons) also to be included even though they
are only exceptional cases?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

In the event
referred in the negative:

that

the Court answers the first question

2. Should Directive 85/577/EEC be interpreted as meaning
that the right of renunciation cannot be forfeited by the
the
consumer — in particular after the completion of
contract — if he has not been given notice in accordance
with the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Directive?

(1) OJ L 372, p. 31.

Appeal brought on 12 October 2006 by the Italian
Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 13 July 2006 in Case
T-225/04 Italian Republic v Commission of the European
Communities

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2006 —
Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG

(Case C-412/06)

(2006/C 310/12)

Parties

(Case C-417/06 P)

(2006/C 310/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: German

Italian Republic (represented by:
Appellant:
Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avvocato dello Stato)

I.M. Braguglia,

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG

Question referred

1. May the first paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) of
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 (1) be
interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not
precluded from placing a time-limit on the right of cancella-
tion given by Article 5 of
the Directive, despite the
consumer having been given defective notice, so that it

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 dismissing the
action brought by the Italian Republic against the Commis-
sion for annulment of Commission Decision No C (2003)
3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative
allocations between the Member States of the commitment
appropriations under Community initiatives for the period
1994-1999;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance in full
pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities, as
amended, and annul the Commission Decision;

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

C 310/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

— to recover that aid from the recipients,

1.

2.

3.

4.

infringement of the law by reason of misstatement of the
legal basis,
inconsistent application and misapplication of
rules and inadequate statement of grounds in relation to the
first part of the first plea in the action before the Court of
First Instance (paragraphs 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76 and 77 of
the judgment);

infringement of the law by reason of inadequate and contra-
dictory statement of grounds in relation to the second part
of the first plea in the action before the Court of First
Instance (paragraphs 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95 of the judg-
ment);

infringement of the law by reason of the lack of legal basis
and inadequate and contradictory statement of grounds in
relation to the first part of second plea in the action before
the Court of First Instance (paragraphs 110 — 123 of the
judgment);

infringement of the law by reason of inadequate and contra-
dictory statement of grounds in relation to the second, third
and fourth parts of the second plea in the action before the
Court of First Instance (paragraphs 147, 148, 149, 151,
153, 154 and 155 of the judgment).

Action brought on 13 October 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-419/06)

(2006/C 310/14)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of
such specific measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the above
decision and the EC Treaty;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission decision requires Greece to recover the aid
referred to in Article 1 from the recipients and to suspend
without delay each payment of aid to Olympic Airways and
Olympic Airlines. Greece was also required to inform the
Commission, within two months of the date of the decision, of
the measures it took to comply.

The above period allowed for compliance expired on 15
November 2005.

According to settled case law, the only justification that can be
put forward by a Member State in the context of the Article
88(2) EC procedure is the absolute impossibility of proper
implementation of the decision. The Commission would, more-
over, point out that, in accordance with the above case-law, the
Greek authorities could not rely on absolute impossibility
without having attempted to recover the amount, and no such
attempt has been made.

The Greek authorities have not relied on extraordinary or
unforeseeable difficulties rendering implementation of the deci-
sion impossible. Nor have they proposed alternative means of
applying the decision which would enable the difficulties to be
overcome. The Greek authorities have confined themselves to
challenging the validity of the decision and of the quantitative
calculation of the aid by the Commission, a fact which shows
that they have not applied the slightest measure to suspend or
recover the aid.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and E. Righini)

Action brought on 6 October 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

(Case C-424/06)

(2006/C 310/15)

Language of the case: Italian

— declare, that, by failing to take the necessary measures,

within the prescribed period,

— to abolish aid found to be unlawful and incompatible
with the common market by Commission Decision
C(2005)2706 of 14 September 2005 relating to State
aid granted by Greece
to Olympic Airways and
Olympic Airlines (notified on 15 September 2005 by
document SG Greffe (2005) D/205062), and

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Montaguti and N. Yerrell, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic