CELEX: C1997/009/09
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 24 October 1996 in Case C-72/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlandse Raad van State): Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld BV and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment)

11 . 1 . 97          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/5
      back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging                 Azevedo, 61 rue de Gasperich — the Court ( Sixth
      of those items entitles the customer, if he proves                Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, acting for the
      purchase of one of those items and satisfies other                President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
      conditions printed on the coupon, to present the                  Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,
      coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of               Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such              judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
      an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the
      manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, the
      taxable amount is equal to the selling price charged by           1 . Dismisses the appeal.
      the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the
      coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original
      supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler
      rather than directly to a retailer.                               2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
H OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 8 .                                  0 ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 5 .
(2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                    of 24 October 1996
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in Case C-72/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European                           the Netherlandse Raad van State): Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Communities v. Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                        Kraaijeveld BV and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van
           Restaurantes Colectivos Lda and Others (^                                             Zuid-Holland (M
(European Social Fund — Decision reducing financial                     (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
assistance initially granted — Infringement of the rights of            the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     the defence — Right of interested parties to be heard)                                        environment)
                               ( 97/C 9/08 )                                                        ( 97/C 9/09 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and                        In Case C-72/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad
Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                  van State ( Netherlandse State Council ) for a preliminary
6 December 1994 in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal and Others v.                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1177, seeking to have that                    between Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld BV and
judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the                    Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland — on
proceedings being: Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                    the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
Restaurantes Colectivos Lda, a company incorporated                     27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
under Portuguese law, established in Almada ( Portugal ),               public and private projects on the environment ( 2 ) and on
Gabinete Tecnico de Informática Lda ( GTI ), a company                  the duty of national courts to ensure that a directive
incorporated under Portuguese law, established in Lisbon,               having direct effect is complied with, although no
Lisnico — Serviço Marítimo Internacional Lda, a                         individual has invoked it — the Court, composed of: G. C.
company incorporated under Portuguese law, established                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray,
in Almada, Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistência                          L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
Maritima Lda, a company incorporated under Portuguese                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
law, established in Almada, and Gaslimpo — Sociedade de                 Edward, J. -P. Puissochet. G. Hirsch and M. Wathelet,
Desgasificação de Navios SA, a company incorporated                     Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-
under Portuguese law, established in Almada, represented                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
by Manuel Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address                 given a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has
for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of Angelo Alves                ruled :
 ---pagebreak---  No C 9/6               LIN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11 . . 97
  1 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/                                       ( Sixth Chamber )
       EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
       of certain public and private projects on the                                           of 24 October 1996
       environment must be interpreted as including certain              in Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
       types of work on a dyke running alongside waterways.                European Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd ( 1 )
                                                                          (Competition — Groups of companies — Article 85 (1 ) of
                                                                                                     the EC Treaty)
 2 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                                          ( 97/C 9/10 )
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC is to
       be interpreted as including not only construction of a
       new dyke but also modification of an existing dyke                                 (Language of the case: French)
       involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening,
       replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider                      published in the European Court Reports)
       than the old one, or a combination of such works.
                                                                         In Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV (Agent: Werner
                                                                         Kleinmann ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                         of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
 3 ) — Article 4 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC and
                                                                         Chamber ) of 12 January 1995 in Case T-102/92 Viho v.
           point 10 (e) of Annex II must be interpreted as
                                                                         Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-17, seeking to have that
           meaning that a Member State which establishes the
                                                                         judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
           criteria or thresholds necessary to classify projects
                                                                         being Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
           relating to dykes at a level such that, in practice,
                                                                         Bernd Langeheine ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, — the
           all such projects are exempted in advance from the
                                                                         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
           requirement of an impact assessment exceeds the               President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H.
           limits of its discretion within the meaning of
                                                                         Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate­
           Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the Directive unless all
                                                                         General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
           projects excluded could, when viewed as a whole,              24 October 1996, in which it:
           be regarded as not being likely to have significant
           effects on the environment.
                                                                         1 . Dismisses the appeal.
       — Where under national law a court must or may                    2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
           raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a
           binding national rule which have not been put                 (!) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 10 .
           forward by the parties, it must, for matters within
           its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion
           whether the legislative or administrative
           authorities of the Member State have remained
           within the limits of their discretion within the
           meaning of Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the
                                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           Directive, and take account thereof when
           examining the action for annulment.                                                    ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                               of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in     Case   C-76/95 : Commission of the European
      — Where that discretion has been exceeded and
                                                                                      Communities v. Royale Beige SA ( J )
           consequently the national provisions must be set
           aside in that respect, it is for the authorities of the       (Officials — Insurance against accidents and occupational
           Member State, according to their respective                                                   diseases)
           powers, to take all the general or particular                                              ( 97/C 9/11 )
           measures necessary to ensure that projects are
           examined in order to determine whether they are
           likely to have significant effects on the                                     (Language of the case: French)
           environment and, if so, to ensure that they are
           subject to an impact assessment.                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                   published in the European Court Reports)
0 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p. 40 .                               In Case C-76/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Jean-Luc
                                                                        Fagnart) v. Royale Beige SA ( Counsel: Francois van der
                                                                        Mensbrugghe ) — application for an order that the insurers
                                                                        pay the Commission the lump sum allegedly due from the