Case C-574/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2008-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, customers, economic activity, national implementing measure, political figure

C 44/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament relies on a single plea in law in
support of its application, namely the wrong legal basis of the
contested decision. According to the Parliament, it is clear both
from the interpretation of Article 300 EC and from the content
of the agreement at issue in the present case that that agreement
falls within the category of agreements establishing a specific
institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures.
Consequently, the contested decision should have been adopted
on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first
sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the
second subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC — requiring the assent
of the European Parliament to be obtained — and not on the
basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of
the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the first sub-
the
paragraph of Article 300(3) EC, providing merely for
Parliament to be consulted.

for

period

prescribed

transposition

of Directive
The
2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007. At
the date on
which the present action was brought, the defendant had not
yet adopted all the measures necessary for transposition of the
in any event, had not notified the Commission
Directive or,
thereof.

(1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

(1) OJ 2008 L 268, p. 27.

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

Action brought on 19 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-567/08)

(2009/C 44/64)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-574/08)

(2009/C 44/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Parties

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Perre, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional
qualifications (1) and, in any event, by failing to notify the
Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

to

necessary

provisions

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
comply with
administrative
Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying
down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the
definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical
criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and
for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted
on an occasional or very limited basis (1), or in any event by
failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/39

Pleas in law and main arguments

the transposition of Directive 2006/70/EC
The period for
expired on 15 December 2007. However, at
the time the
present action was brought, the defendant had not adopted all
the necessary implementing measures or, in any event, had not
at that time informed the Commission thereof.

(1) OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29.

Appeal brought on 24 December 2008 by Christos Gogos
against
the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance (Seventh Chamber) on 15 October 2008 in Case
T-66/04 Christos Gogos v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-583/08 P)

(2009/C 44/67)

Language of the case: Greek

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-575/08)

(2009/C 44/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Peere and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— declare that in failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive
2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of
limited
liability companies (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for the transposition of Directive 2005/56/EC
expired on 14 December 2007. At the date of filing of the
present action, the defendant had not adopted all the necessary
implementing measures or, in any event, had not yet communi-
cated those measures to the Commission.

(1) OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1.

Parties

Appellant: Christos Gogos (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and
P. Katsimani, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

— annul the decision placing him in Grade A 7 and the deci-
sion of 24 November 2003 rejecting his administrative
complaint;

— exercise its unlimited jurisdiction and award compensation
totalling EUR 538 121,79 in respect of
the economic
damage which results from the Commission's unlawful
conduct
issue, and
in adopting the harmful decision at
which has been aggravated by the administrative reform for
the remainder of his expected life;

— award compensation totalling EUR 50 000 for the long

delay in delivery of the judgment at first instance;

— order the defendant to pay the appellant's costs in respect of
both the case before the Court of First Instance and the
present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal against the judgment of 15 October 2008 in Case
T-66/04 Christos Gogos v Commission of the European Communities,
the appellant Christos Gogos puts forward, first of all, two pleas
to substantiate his claim that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside.

the appellant complains of

First,
reasoning in respect of five of
which he put forward as applicant.

insufficient and mistaken
the six pleas for annulment

Secondly, the appellant submits that the length of the proceed-
ings before the Court of First Instance is not justified by objec-
tive reasons. Furthermore, he has been harmed economically
and has suffered non-material damage because of that delay.