Case C-264/07: Action brought on 1 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, economic analysis, environmental impact, groundwater, hydrology, surface water, water management

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/17

Pleas in law and main arguments

to submit relevant documents and evidence. Since this did not
happen, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 64(3)(d) of
its Rules of Procedure.

By its appeal, the appellant raises the following complaints,
which relate to the infringement by the order under appeal of
procedural requirements of Community law, by which its inter-
ests were prejudiced and which went so far as to affect the
content of the order under appeal. They relate to the observance
of the right to be heard and measures of inquiry.

(1) Not published.

The Court of First Instance ordered that the decision on the
respondent's objection of
inadmissibility should be reserved
until final judgment. Following the lodging of the response by
it closed the written procedure and indicated
the respondent,
that the date for the hearing would be notified to the parties at
a later date. The applicant had accordingly, in reliance on a date
being fixed for a hearing and, above all, on the basis of the
order made by the Court, waived its right to present a request
under Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that the documents be supplemented. Notwith-
standing its earlier indication, the Court ultimately made the
order under appeal without there being a hearing.

The appellant proceeded on the basis that it would be able to
provide further justification at the hearing that was to be noti-
fied for its claim that there are no products on the market that
are similar to the small metal wheels that are supplied by its
Japanese parent company to manufacturers in Hong Kong and
Mexico. In addition, it was its intention to make it clear once
again that the wheels in question are not ‘friction wheels’, as the
respondent incorrectly indicated in its response. The appellant
also wished to explain at the hearing that the small metal
wheels that were represented in the disputed classification regu-
lation could only have been produced by its parent company in
Japan and that it was accordingly not a question of small metal
wheels of a generic nature as the Court of First Instance indi-
cated in the order under appeal. It also intended to rebut the
Commission's contentions that it was not the sole importer of
Tokai cigarette lighters.

However, as is clear from the order under appeal
itself, the
Court of First Instance adopted the Commission's arguments as
in its response,
to the admissibility of
without, as mentioned, giving the appellant the opportunity to
challenge the version of the events put forward by the respon-
dent. The appellant claims that this represents an infringement
of its right to a fair hearing.

the action set out

Action brought on 1 June 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-264/07)

(2007/C 170/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

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

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

its characteristics, a review of

— declare that, by failing to draw up by 22 December 2004
for each river basin district falling within its territory an
analysis of
the impact of
human activity on the status of surface waters and on
groundwater and an economic analysis of water use,
in
in
accordance with the technical specifications set out
Annexes II and III, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its
of Directive
2000/60/EC (1) establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy, while, by failing to submit
summary reports of the analyses required under that article,
it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(2)
of that directive;

obligations

Article

under

5(1)

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

The Court of First Instance is also under a duty to establish the
facts. In so doing, it is not restricted in the proceedings before it
simply to establishing the facts in reliance on the requests of the
parties for measures of inquiry and to reach a decision on the
basis of the evidence led before it alone. Therefore, not only can
it take the initiative of its own motion, but it is also under a
duty to take the initiative where this is necessary. Accordingly,
the Court of First Instance was under a duty to clarify the
evidence put forward by the applicant in its written pleadings
and, by making the appropriate orders, to call upon the parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2000/60 entered into force on 22 December 2000.
Therefore the Member States were obliged to have completed
the analyses and the review required under Article 5(1) of the
Directive by 22 December 2004 at the latest, and to submit to
the Commission a summary report concerning those analyses,
as laid down by Article 15(2) of the directive, by 22 March
2005 at the latest.

C 170/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

In their response to the Commission's letter of formal notice,
the Greek authorities acknowledged the failure to comply with
Article 15(2) of the directive and undertook to forward the
required report in June 2006. So far as concerns, however, the
Hellenic Republic's compliance with the obligations flowing
from Article 5(1) of the directive, the Greek authorities were
silent, despite the fact that the Commission in its letter of
formal notice cast doubt on whether the Hellenic Republic had
fulfilled its obligations under that article.

in June 2006 that

It was apparent from analysing the report which was finally
sent
the Hellenic Republic still had not
complied with the obligations that flow from Articles 5(1) and
15(2) of Directive 2000/60.

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the intero-
perability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and
Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European
conventional rail system (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 114), or at any
event by failing to communicate those measures to the
Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

— order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition into domestic law of
Directive 2004/50/EC expired on 29 April 2006.

(1) SL.ES Chapter 13 Volume 34 P. 838.

Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-267/07)

(2007/C 170/32)

Language of the case: Slovene

Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
— Belgium) — Clear Channel Belgium S.A. v City of Liège

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Form of order sought

(Case C-378/06) (1)

(2007/C 170/33)

Language of the case: French

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and other provi-
sions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.