Case C-402/08: Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovenia, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, degradation of the environment, legislation

C 285/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

In the Commission's opinion, the justifications relied on by the
Spanish and Catalan authorities — protection of consumers
(protection of small businesses in order to guarantee competi-
tive supply in each market, protection of the environment and
urban areas) cannot be accepted for the following reasons:

Appeal brought on 23 September2008 by Trubowest
Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 July
2008 in Case T-429/04 Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor
Makarov v Council, Commission

1. The criteria laid down by the legislation at issue is not in fact
intended to protect consumers as the national authorities
state, but to favour the small business sector to the detriment
of the big names of commercial distribution. Therefore, the
measures are an inappropriate means of attaining the alleged
objective as in reality they have an economic purpose.

2. The measures at issue go beyond what is necessary to attain
the objectives pursued. In any event, it is for the national
authorities to prove that the objectives relied on could not
have been achieved by less restrictive measures.

Parties

(Case C-419/08 P)

(2008/C 285/50)

Language of the case: English

Appellants: Trubowest Handel GmbH, Viktor Makarov (repre-
sented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, dikigoroi)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-402/08)

(2008/C 285/49)

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Language of the case: Slovene

Instance

— Set aside in its entirety the Judgment of the Court of First

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by U. Wölker and V. Kovačič, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

— Accept, by giving a final judgment itself, the application for
compensation under Article 288 EC lodged before the Court
of First Instance (CFI), or in the alternative refer the case
back to the CFI

— Order the Council and the Commission,

in addition to
paying their own costs, to pay all the costs occasioned by
the appellants, in the course of the present proceedings and
the proceedings before the CFI

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— A declaration that the Republic of Slovenia, by failing to
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004
on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and
remedying of environmental damage, has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

— an order that the Republic of Slovenia should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
2004/35/CE expired on 30 April 2007.

implementation of Directive

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.

The appellants submit that the contested judgment should be
set aside for the following reasons:

1) The CFI erred in law in interpreting and applying Com-
munity law with regard to the conditions under which the
Community may incur non-contractual liability pursuant to
Article 288(2) EC. First it is submitted that the contested
judgement is vitiated by an error of law in so far as the CFI
has totally failed to consider the illegal conduct complained
of in the context of assessing the causal link and failed to
investigate it in its legal context although it ought to have
done so in order
to determine the Community's legal
responsibility. The CFI erred in law by failing to correctly
assess, in accordance with Community law, the existence of a
direct causal nexus between the conduct of the Community
Institutions and the resulting damage suffered by the appel-
lants and in finding that there was no sufficiently direct
causal link between the conduct of the Community Institu-
tions and the resulting damage on the grounds that either
the appellants failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence
and/or that the fault is attributed exclusively to the German
Authorities.