Case C-557/08: Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, marine pollution, maritime shipping, maritime transport, pollution control measures

C 44/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

The appellant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its
appeal.

By its first plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First
Instance infringed the principle that penalties must be specific
to the offender in that it held that the Commission was not
required to assess individually the various elements of the infrin-
gement, since there was a single infringement and an overall
strategy shared by all the members of the cartel. In the absence
of a definition of the relevant product markets or of the cate-
gories of products in question, such an overall assessment of the
infringement leads to the amount of the fine being set without
infringement specifically committed by
regard for the actual
each member of the cartel.

By its second plea, the appellant asserts that the Court of First
Instance misinterpreted the Commission's decision in that it
held that the Commission had taken account of
the actual
impact of the cartel on the market in question in order to deter-
mine the amount of the fine, despite the fact that the Commis-
sion itself had stated, both in its decision of 3 December 2003,
and at the hearing before the Court of First Instance, that that
impact could not be determined with any precision. The infrin-
gement was classified as ‘very serious’ on the sole ground of its
type and geographical scope.

By its third plea, the appellant claims that the Court of First
Instance infringed the principle of equal treatment in that it
upheld the Commission's refusal to grant the appellant an addi-
tional reduction in the amount of the fine based on the leniency
notice, despite the fact that that reduction had been granted
additionally to two other companies, which are competitors of
the appellant. The close and sustained cooperation of the appel-
lant in the course of the proceedings was, therefore, not suffi-
ciently taken into account and recompensed by the Court of
First Instance.

By its fourth and final plea, Carbone Lorraine objects to the
breaches, by the Court of First Instance, of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment,
in that it held that the
appellant could not benefit from a reduction in the amount of
the fine on the basis of the serious financial difficulties which it
was facing, despite the fact that that same factor was held to be
sufficient to reduce the fine imposed on another competing
company.

(1) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 7 February 1962, First Regulation
the Treaty (English special

implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

(3) OJ 2004 L 125, p. 45.

(Case C-556/08)

(2009/C 44/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with
Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of
professional qualifications, or in any event by failing to fully
communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 October 2007.

(1) OJ L 255, p. 22.

Action brought on 16 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-557/08)

(2009/C 44/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

the European Parliament and of

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2005/35/EC (1) of
the
Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and
on the introduction of penalties for infringements, or in any
event by failing to communicate them to the Commission,
the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Directive;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 1 April 2007.

(1) OJ L 255, p. 11.

By its appeal, the Commission is challenging the categorisation
by the Court of First Instance of the notification sent to the
respondent informing him of the non-renewal of his contract of
employment as a temporary servant. The Court of First Instance
interpreted that notification as a separate decision of
the
appointing authority. It is, however, clear from the case-law of
the Court of
in particular, Case C-417/05 P
Fernández Gómez, that such a notification has merely informative
value, with only the terms of
the contract stating that the
contract will not be renewed upon expiry amounting to an act
adversely affecting a party. As that contract was not challenged
within the periods prescribed by the Staff Regulations,
the
Court of First Instance should have dismissed the action as inad-
missible.

Justice and,

In disregarding that case-law, the Court of First Instance there-
fore created a situation of legal uncertainty for the Civil Service
Tribunal and for the Commission and other institutions which
have concluded contracts similar to that at issue in the present
case.

Appeal brought on 19 December 2008 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on
15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04 Potamianos v
Commission

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European
Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-561/08 P)

(2009/C 44/62)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-566/08)

(2009/C 44/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Gerasimos Potamianos

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos, G.
Mazzini and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

Form of order sought

15 October 2008 in Case T-160/04;

— Declare Mr Potamianos's action inadmissible;

— Rule that each of the parties is to bear their own costs as
regards both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings
before the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities.

— annul, on the ground of breach of the EC Treaty, Council
Decision 2008/780/EC of 29 September 2008 on the
conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (1);

— order the Council to pay the costs.