Case C-42/09: Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2009-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, maritime court, recognition of diplomas

C 69/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.3.2009

4. If the answer to Question 3 is affirmative: Are Articles 2(14)
and 15a of Directive 96/61 to be interpreted as meaning
that national requirements can be laid down with regard to
the right to judicial review, with the result that a locally
established environmental protection association which has a
right to participate in the decision-making procedures in
respect of projects which may have significant effects on the
environment in the area where the association is active does
not — since it has fewer members than the minimum
number laid down in national law — have a right of appeal
such as is referred to in Article 15a of Directive 96/61?

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

(2) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning inte-
grated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26).

Pleas in law and main arguments

thus

The adoption of a sectoral prohibition against driving lorries
with a total weight of more than 7.5 tonnes,
loaded with
certain goods, on the A12 motorway must be regarded as
constituting a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative
incompatible with Articles 28 EC
restriction and is
and 29 EC. The disputed measure is neither appropriate nor
necessary to achieve the improvement in air quality on the A12
required by Community law as it is not properly focused and
does not take less restrictive measures, such as, for instance,
permanent speed restrictions or emissions-dependent prohibi-
tions on driving, into consideration. Furthermore, the defendant
has not proved that there is a suitable alterative to road trans-
port.

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-28/09)

(2009/C 69/51)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-42/09)

(2009/C 69/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Lozano Palacios and E. Vesco, acting as Agents)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver, A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, acting
as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

— declare that, by prohibiting lorries with a total weight of
more than 7.5 tonnes, carrying certain goods, from being
driven on a section of the A12 motorway, the Republic of
Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC
and 29 EC;

Form of order sought

the European Parliament and of

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2005/45/EC (1) of
the
Council of 7 September 2005 on the mutual recognition of
seafarers' certificates issued by the Member States and
amending Directive 2001/25/EC and, in any event, by failing
to notify the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that direc-
tive.

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

period

prescribed
The
2005/45/EC expired on 20 October 2007.

for

transposition

(1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 160.

of Directive

It submits in its first ground of appeal that the Court of First
Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Community law with
regard to the Commission's power ratione temporis to impose the
particular financial correction, and that its judgment contains
contradictory reasoning.

The second ground is based on the submission that the Court
of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Community law
as regards infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity in
connection with failure to comply with publicity measures, and
that
its judgment contains contradictory reasoning in this
regard.

The third ground is based on the submission that the Court of
First Instance infringed the Community law principle of propor-
tionality.

Appeal brought on 29 January 2009 by the Hellenic
Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Eighth Chamber) on 19 November 2008 in
Case T-404/05 Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-43/09 P)

(2009/C 69/53)

Language of the case: Greek

Action brought on 30 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-44/09)

(2009/C 69/54)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Hellenic Republic
Meidanis and M. Tassopoulou)

(represented by: Kharalampos

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. van Beek and M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— hold the present appeal admissible and well founded;

— set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 19 November 2008 in Case T-404/05 Hellenic
Republic v Commission of
the European Communities which
constitutes the subject of the present appeal;

— order the opposing party to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

By the judgment of 19 November 2008, the setting aside of
which is sought in the present appeal, the Court of First Instance
dismissed the action in its entirety.

The Hellenic Republic puts forward three grounds in support of
its appeal against that judgment.

Form of order sought

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/113/EC (1) of 13 December 2004 imple-
menting the principle of equal treatment between men and
women in the access to and supply of goods and services, or
in any event by not notifying those provisions to the
Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/113/EC into
domestic law expired on 21 December 2007.

(1) OJ L 373 of 21.12.2004, p. 37.