CELEX: C2000/335/71
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-374/00: Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

C 335/40                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.11.2000
3)    Commission Decision 98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on                   4)    the Court of First Instance should not have rejected the
      German aid to the coal industry for 1997 (OJ 1998                          pleas under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure.
      L 234, p. 30) be annulled, or, alternatively, the case be
      remitted back to the CFI;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
4)    the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and those
      incurred before the Court of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
Without progressing to an oral hearing, the Court of First                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
Instance, in its order of 25 July 2000, held, pursuant to                                                     lic
Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure, that RJB Mining’s
application was lacking in any foundation in law in so far as it                                      (Case C-374/00)
was based on pleas that were not rejected in the interlocutory
judgment dated 9 September 1999.
                                                                                                      (2000/C 335/71)
The Court of First Instance ruled that:                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
a)    the plea relating to the erroneous test of mere reduction            11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Com-
      in production costs was a new plea, was raised for the               munities, represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
      first time on 1 March 2000 and was therefore manifestly              Adviser in its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a
      inadmissible by reason of the operation of Article 48(2)             national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with
      of the Rules of Procedure; and                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                           Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                           Kirchberg.
b)    the plea of lack of reasons was manifestly unfounded
      because it merely repeated the arguments put forward in
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      support of the substantive pleas rejected as inadmissible.
                                                                           —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
The Appellant contends that:                                                     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                 comply fully with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of
1)    the Appellant did not raise a new plea on 1 March 2000.                    3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      This is because:                                                           assessment of the effects of certain public and private
                                                                                 projects on the environment, the Hellenic Republic has
      a)     the Court of First Instance misconstrued Article 48                 failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
             of the Rules of Procedure — the argument relating
             to mere reduction of production costs was not a               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
             ‘plea’ within that Article;
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
      b)     alternatively, the Court of First Instance wrongly
             held that the plea of mere reduction of production
             costs was not already a separate plea from that               The Member States are required by the binding character of
             relating to viability; and                                    the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                           paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
                                                                           adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
      c)     in the further alternative, if the Appellant is wrong         law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
             in relation to (a) and (b), the plea of mere reduction        and to communicate those measures immediately to the
             of production costs was so closely connected with             Commission. The Commission states that up until now the
             the viability plea that it should be regarded as              Hellenic Republic has not adopted the appropriate measures
             amplification of that plea and the Appellant should           for fully incorporating the directive at issue into national law,
             be entitled to raise it;                                      nor indeed has it communicated such measures to the
                                                                           Commission.
2)    the Court of First Instance should, in any event, have
      raised the plea of its own motion;
                                                                           (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
3)    the Court of First instance erred in rejecting the plea of
      breach of the duty to state reasons;