Case C-196/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, economic concentration, electrical energy, gas industry, merger control

C 155/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

Action brought on 11 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

It follows that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with
Article 2 of the Commission's first decision and with Article 2
of its second decision.

(Case C-196/07)

(2007/C 155/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that by not withdrawing without delay a number of
conditions imposed by the decision of the National Energy
Committee (CNE) (conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17) which were
declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1 of
the Commission Decision of 26 September 2006 (Case
No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006)4279 final)
and by not withdrawing by 19 January 2007 a number of
conditions imposed by decision of the Ministry (amended
conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15) which declared incompatible
with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Deci-
sion of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 —
E.ON/Endesa — C(2006)7039 final), the Kingdom of Spain
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 2 of both
decisions;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Spanish authorities have not withdrawn a number of condi-
tions imposed by the decision of the CNE (conditions 1 to 6, 8
and 17) which were declared incompatible with Community law
by Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 26 September
2006 and have not withdrawn the amended conditions imposed
the Ministry (amended conditions 1, 10, 11
by decision of
and 15) which were declared incompatible with Community law
by Article 1 of
second Commission Decision of
20 December 2006.

the

The first decision required that the Kingdom of Spain withdraw
the conditions in question ‘without delay’. Upon expiry of the
period prescribed by the Commission for compliance with the
reasoned opinion, almost six months had elapsed since the noti-
fication of the first decision, so that it is clear that the Kingdom
of Spain had not complied ‘without delay’ with the obligation
imposed by Article 2.

The deadline of 19 January 2007 for compliance with the
Commission's second decision expired without the Kingdom of
Spain having withdrawn the conditions declared by that decision
to be incompatible with Community law.

the

judgment

Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by the Hellenic Republic
against
the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber) on 17 January 2007 in Case
T-231/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European
Communities

delivered

by

(Case C-203/07 P)

(2007/C 155/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Milonopoulos
and S. Trekli)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— allow the present appeal;

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in so

far as it is contested;

— grant the application in accordance with the form of order

sought;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic submits that the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities misinterpreted Articles 12, 13
and 15 of the initial memorandum of understanding, Article 14
of the additional memorandum and the principles of good faith
and of the protection of legitimate expectations, since it held
that the obligations of the Member States in connection with
the Abuja I and II projects were determined by the conduct of
each Member State and not that they were of a purely contrac-
tual nature and determined by the provisions of the two above-
mentioned memoranda; on a proper interpretation of the fore-
going provisions of those contractual documents, however,
it
had to be accepted that financial obligations had not arisen for
the Hellenic Republic since it had only signed and had not rati-
fied the additional memorandum, it had therefore not approved
that memorandum, and all the special conditions laid down for
the arising of financial obligations had not been met in the case
of the Hellenic Republic.