Case C-45/07: Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competence, European Commission, Greece, International Maritime Organisation, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, harbour installation, maritime safety, maritime transport, transport regulations

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/19

— the diploma shows post-secondary training of more than
three years, since in order to obtain the diploma of
Hospital Pharmacist it is necessary to be in possession of
the university diploma of Licenciado en Farmacia,
to
have completed the training in the corresponding specia-
lisation and to have passed an examination;

— the diploma shows that the holder has the necessary
qualifications to follow the profession of hospital phar-
macist in Spain.

2. In the same way, the profession of hospital pharmacist is a
‘regulated profession’ in Spain within the meaning of Direc-
tive 89/48/EEC.

3. Council Directive 85/433/EEC (2) of 16 September 1985
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
and other evidence of
formal qualifications in pharmacy,
including measures to facilitate the right of establishment
relating to certain activities in the field of pharmacy, is not
applicable to the profession of hospital pharmacist.

4. Consequently, the Kingdom of Spain was required to trans-
pose Directive 89/48/EEC in connection with the profession
of hospital pharmacist. By not adopting the necessary
measures in that regard, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive.

(1) OJ L 19, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 253, p. 37.

of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain
plans and programmes on the environment (1), the Italian
Republic has
under
Article 13(1) of that directive;

obligations

failed

fulfil

its

to

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
expired on 21 July 2004.

for

transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC

(1) OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-45/07)

(2007/C 82/35)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: K. Simonsson, M. Konstantinidis and F. Hoffmeister)

(Case C-40/07)

(2007/C 82/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by submitting to the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) on 18 March 2005 a proposal
for
‘Monitoring the compliance of ships and port facilities with
the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of SOLAS and the ISPS
Code’, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing
the European Community;

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia, J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Defendant: Italian Republic

Pleas in law and main arguments

Forms of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

According to the Commission, the submission by the Hellenic
Republic to the International Maritime Organisation of a
proposal in respect of a matter covered by Regulation (EC) No
725/2004 (1) on enhancing ship and port
facility security,
without being authorised so to do by the Community, consti-
tutes a breach of its obligations under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2)
of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

C 82/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

The Commission submits that, since the adoption of Regulation
No 725/2004, the Community has had exclusive competence
with regard to entering into international obligations in the field
of maritime security. Consequently,
the Member States no
longer have the power to present national views to the Interna-
tional Maritime Organisation on matters which fall within exclu-
sive Community competence, unless they receive such authorisa-
tion from the Community.

(1) OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6.

Appeal brought on 2 February 2007 by Masdar (UK) Ltd
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) delivered on 16 November 2006 in Case T-333/
03: Masdar (UK) Ltd v The Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-47/07 P)

(2007/C 82/37)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-46/07)

(2007/C 82/36)

Parties

Appellant: Masdar (UK) Ltd (represented by: A. Bentley and P.
Green, Barristers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

Language of the case: Italian

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by maintaining in force a provision by which
public employees are entitled to receive the old-age pension
at different ages depending on whether they are male or
female, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 141 EC;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission claims that the pension scheme managed by
INPDAP (National Provident Institution for the Employees of
is a discriminatory occupational scheme
Public Authorities)
contrary to Article 141 EC, since it provides that the general
pensionable age for men is 65 and for women 60.

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 16 November 2006 in Case T-333/03, MASDAR
(U.K) Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities.

— order the Commission to pay to the Applicant:

(i) The sum of EUR 448,947.78 claimed by the Appellant
in Case T-333/03, or
sum of
EUR 249,314.35 or such other sum as the Court
considers appropriate; and

failing

this,

the

(ii) Interest on the amount in (i);

— order the Commission to pay the costs of

the present
proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (‘CFI’) should be set aside on the following grounds:

1. The CFI erred in law when it characterised the Appellant as
merely having acted pursuant to its contractual obligations
towards Helmico, as a result of which the CFI dismissed the
Appellant's claims founded on unjust enrichment and nego-
tiorum gestio. In doing so, the CFI failed to have regard to the
Appellant's entitlement to terminate the sub-contracts as at 2
October 1998.

2. Irrespective of whether the Appellant acted pursuant to a
contractual obligation towards Helmico or not, the CFI erred
in law by failing to take into consideration (i) the fact that
the Commission was not in the position of an ordinary
contractor, but had powers of recovery which it could exer-
cise pursuant to the Financial Regulation of 21 December
1977 applicable to the general budget of
the European
Communities (1) and (ii) how such powers were exercised by
the Commission.