Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 200/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 23.8.2003

**Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission of the**
**European Communities against the United Kingdom of**
**Great Britain and Northern Ireland**

**(Case C-277/03)**

(2003/C 200/34)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 25 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Xavier
Lewis and Mr Minas Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ
L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34) the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in particular its
Article 10 (1) and under the Treaty establishing the
European Community.

2) order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.

**Action brought on 26 June 2003 by the Commission of**
**the** **European** **Communities** **against** **Implants** **(Interna-**
**tional) Ltd**

**(Case C-279/03)**

(2003/C 200/35)

An action against Implants (International) Ltd was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by R. Lyal and C. Giolito, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

—
order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of
EUR 294 958,51 (two hundred and ninety four thousand,
nine hundred and fifty eight Euros and fifty one Cents),
corresponding to EUR 284 000 as the amount due and
EUR 10 958,51 as late payment interest;

—
order the defendant to pay EUR 52,91 (fifty two Euros
and ninety one Cents) per day by way of interest from
1 May 2003 until the date on which the debt is repaid in
full;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
action.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

On the basis of Article 3(1)(a) of the general conditions
(annex II of the contract) the defendant was obliged to
distribute the initial advance among the contractors and/or
the RTD Performers within thirty days of receipt of the funds.
The defendant did not do so and withdrew from the project.
Under the contract all payments were to be treated as advances
until the last project deliverable was approved. The defendant
is therefore obliged to reimburse the advance payment to the
Commission, subject to proof by the defendant of any costs
incurred by it.

The defendant had until 31 August 2002 to submit a claim for
costs, together with the necessary technical report in support
of such a claim. The defendant did not do so and therefore has
forfeited its right to make a claim for any costs incurred in
relation to the project and it thus has no right to claim a
deduction from the advance payment in respect of such a
claim.

**Action brought on 3 July 2003 by the Commission of the**
**European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium**

**(Case C-287/03)**

(2003/C 200/36)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by applying in a discriminatory and disproportionate manner the conditions of ‘similarity’ and ‘sole
vendor’ as between products and services acquired by a
consumer, on the one hand, and products and services
offered free of charge or at reduced prices in the context
of a customer loyalty programme, on the other hand, as a
prior condition for the operation of such a programme as
a cross-border provision of services between undertakings,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 49 of the EC Treaty;