Case C-566/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2008-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Community, European Parliament, Indian Ocean, action for annulment (EU), cooperation procedure, fisheries policy, fishing regulations

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.

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.