Case C-427/07: Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, action programme, environmental impact, prevention of pollution, town-planning regulations

C 269/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Appeal brought on 14 September 2007 by AEPI A.E.
Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias
against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2007 in Case
the European
T-229/05 AEPI A.E. v Commission of

provisions, potential prejudice suffices to found the infringe-
ment.

Communities

(Case C-425/07 P)

(2007/C 269/61)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: AEPI AE Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis
Idioktisias (represented by: T. Asproyerakas-Trivas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— allow this appeal;

— set aside the contested judgment of 12 July 2007 of the
the European Communities
Court of First
(Fourth Chamber), under No 328208,
in Case T-229/05
AEPI A.E. v Commission of the European Communities in its
entirety;

Instance of

— hear and give judgment itself on our application of 14 June
2005 (under Article 230 EC), No 001/4372, 56(2001)
A/3603/2, which was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities against Commission
Decision SG-Greffe (2005) D/201832 of 18 April 2005
rejecting our complaint of 22 March 2001 (2001/4372, 56)
(2001 A/3603/2), or refer the case back to the Court which
delivered the judgment under appeal so that the claims set
out therein be allowed

— order the respondent to pay our costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment under appeal misinterpreted Articles 81 and
82 EC inasmuch as the Court did not examine whether the
contested Commission decision exceeded the limits of its discre-
tion, did not take account of the case-law of the Court of
Justice on the matter and did not take into consideration the
facts set out in the application which show potential prejudice
to intra-Community trade. Lastly, in misinterpreting and misap-
plying Articles 81 and 82 EC, it was considered that the compe-
tition provisions of Community law necessarily require the exis-
tence of actual prejudice to intra-Community trade, whereas in
fact, on a correct interpretation and application of the above

Action brought on 14 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-427/07)

(2007/C 269/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt,

in conformity with
(3) and (4) of
Article 2(1) and Article 4 paragraphs (2),
Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, all
measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects
likely to have significant effects on the environment in the
road construction category covered by Class 10(e) of
Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC are made subject to a
requirement for development consent and to an assessment
with regard to their effects in accordance with Articles 5 to
10 of the Directive, has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Council Directive 85/337/EEC

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles
3(1), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) and 4(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6)
of Directive 2003/35/EC (2) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public partici-
pation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and
programmes relating to the environment and amending
with regard to public participation and access to justice
Council Directive 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC or,
in any
event, by failing to adequately notify such provisions to the
Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 6 of that Directive.

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

Transposition of directive 85/337/EEC

Appeal brought on 18 September 2007 by Bouygues SA
and Bouygues Télécom SA against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on
4 July 2007 in Case T-475/04 Bouygues and Bouygues
Télécom v Commission

(Case C-431/07 P)

(2007/C 269/63)

Language of the case: French

The Commission considers that Ireland has failed to fully trans-
pose directive 85/337/EEC because it fails to make provision for
measures to achieve the results of Articles 2(1) and 4 in respect
of private road projects. The Commission considers that private
road projects (proposed by private developers) fall within the
scope of directive 85/337/EEC. Moreover, there is no basis for a
presumption that such projects will not have significant effects
upon the environment. The failure to include road projects
proposed by private developers amounts to a breach of Ireland's
obligations under the aforementioned Articles of the directive.

Parties

Transposition of directive 2003/35/EC

Ireland,

The Commission contends that there has been a failure on the
part of
in accordance with Article 6 of directive
2003/35/EC, to adopt and inform the Commission of all the
national measures necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 4 of
the directive. More specifically, Article 3, paras. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6
of the directive set out specific amendments to several Articles
of directive 85/337/EEC. Ireland does not dispute that transposi-
tion needs to be effected by changes to both Irish planning legis-
lation and legislation governing other consent systems. Ireland
did not communicate any amendments to its planning legisla-
tion within the time-frame set by the additional reasoned
opinion, and, in any case it has not yet communicated legisla-
tion governing all other consent systems. Articles 3(7) and 4(4)
of the directive require not only systems of review of decision-
making, but systems that provide specific guarantees. To the
extent that Ireland claims that its existing system of judicial
review meets the requirements of Articles 3(7) and 4(4), it has
failed to provide enough information to satisfy the requirements
of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 6 of the
directive.

(1) OJ L 175, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 156, p. 17.

Appellants: Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA (represented
by: F. Sureau, D. Théophile, A. Bénabent, J. Vogel and L. Vogel,
lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities, French Republic, Société française de radiotélé-
phonie — SFR, Orange France SA

Form of order sought

— Annul the judgment delivered on 4 July 2007 by the Court
of First
the European Communities in Case
T-475/04 Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom SA v
Commission;

Instance of

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance for reconsideration in the light of the legal views
expressed by the Court of Justice;

— order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants raise four pleas in law in support of their appeal:

By their first plea, the applicants submit that the Court of First
Instance failed in its duty to state reasons in holding that the
debt waiver at issue in the present case was inevitable due to the
‘the logic of the system’. Since the latter in fact constitutes a rule
derogating from the principle that differential treatment of a
number of companies necessarily constitutes a selective advan-
tage, the Court should have given clear reasons both for the
content of the logic of the system to which it refers and the
causal link between the logic of the system and the established
waiver of State resources.