Case C-203/07 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 17 January 2007 in Case T-231/04 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, Nigeria, action for annulment (EU), appeal, diplomatic representation, financing, operational programme

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The Spanish authorities have not withdrawn a number of condi-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2006 and have not withdrawn the amended conditions imposed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.

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

The Hellenic Republic submits that the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities misinterpreted Article 15 of the
initial memorandum of understanding in holding that, prior to
signature of the additional memorandum, an agreement was
implicitly concluded by the partners on 24 February 1997 to
implement the project and in this way Article 15(1) essentially
was set aside or was amended.

Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-211/07)

(2007/C 155/21)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2007 —
Chamier-Glisczinki
Deutsche
Petra
Angestellten-Krankenkasse

von

v

(Case C-208/07)

(2007/C 155/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Landessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki

Respondent: Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

Questions referred

1. Should Article 19(1)(a) — in conjunction, as the case may
be, with Article 19(2) — of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)
be interpreted in the light of Article 18 EC and Articles 39 EC
in conjunction with Article 10 of Regulation
and 49 EC,
(EEC) No 1612/68 (2), as meaning that an employed or self-
employed person, or a member of that person's family, may
not receive any cash benefits or reimbursement provided on
behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the
place of residence, if there is provision under the law applic-
able to the institution of the place of residence for persons
insured by that institution to receive only cash benefits, and
not benefits in kind?

2. If there is no such entitlement to benefits in kind, is there, in
the light of Article 18 EC, or Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, any
entitlement to payment — subject to prior approval — by
the competent institution of the costs of in-patient care in a
care home situated in another Member State, in the amount
of the benefits payable in the competent Member State?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.

Parties

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

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that in maintaining in force Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of
the Motor Insurance Agreement of 31st May 2004 and in
particular by i) excluding compensation to users of vehicles
if all vehicles involved are uninsured, and ii) limiting the
right to compensation in respect of persons in an uninsured
vehicle which did not cause the damage or injury,
the
Republic of Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30th December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
vehicles, and in particular Article 1(4), third subparagraph
thereof, and

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Section 5.3 of the Agreement between the Minister of Transport
and the Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland of 31st May 2004
(‘the Agreement’) provides for the exclusion of compensation
for all drivers of uninsured vehicles, whether causing the acci-
dent or not), and thus goes beyond the permitted scope of the
exclusion laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of
the directive.

As regards the situation of passengers travelling in uninsured
vehicles, section 5.2 of the Agreement provides for a general
exclusion from compensation in all cases where the injured
person ‘knew or ought reasonably to have known that there was not
in force an approved policy of insurance’. All passengers in unin-
sured vehicles are accordingly treated identically, regardless of
whether they were travelling in the vehicle causing the damage
or injury or not. This is in clear contradiction with the wording
of the third subparagraph of Article 1(4) of the directive, which