CELEX: C1996/269/29
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-240/96)

No C 269/ 14        1 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
European Communities on 10 July 1996 by the United                 Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom
Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins, Assistant                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick                               ( Case C-240/96 )
Wyatt, QC, of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard                                             ( 96/C 269/29 )
Roosevelt .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities on 10 July 1996 by the United
— annul the decision or act comprised in or referred to by         Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins, Assistant
    implication in the memorandum of 2 May 1996 ,                  Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                   Wyatt, QC, of the English Bar, with an address for service in
— award costs against the Commission pursuant to                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard
    Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .                         Roosevelt .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
All Community expenditure must be based on both a
budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is accepted
that the power of initiative of the Commission authorizes          — annul the decision comprised in or referred to by
pilot studies and preparatory action designed to assess the            implication in the memorandum of 15 May 1996 ,
policy pros and cons of making a proposal for a basic
measure , but the power of initiative cannot justify the
initiation of a substantive programme for a basic measure .        — award costs against the Commission pursuant to
Nor can the power of initiative justify expenditure in                 Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
connection with a proposal for a basic measure where it is
clear that the basic measure will not be adopted . In any
event, expenditure which purports to be derived from the
Commission 's power of initiative must be authorized by a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
properly reasoned Commission decision which indicates the
legal basis , establishes the framework and criteria for the
expenditure in question, and is notified to the Member             All Community expenditure must be based on both a
States .                                                           budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is accepted
                                                                   that the power of initiative of the Commission authorizes
                                                                   pilot studies and preparatory action designed to assess the
In the present case the Commission, in a memorandum                policy pros and cons of making a proposal for a basic
circulated to national authorities and to the public ,             measure, but the power of initiative cannot justify the
published an invitation to organizations to apply for grants       initiation of a substantive programme for a basic measure .
to assist the elderly. The proposed expenditure in question        Nor can the power of initiative justify expenditure in
would if incurred comprise expenditure indistinguishable           connection with a proposal for a basic measure where it is
from that authorized under a previous Council decision on          clear that the basic measure will not be adopted. In any
Community actions for the elderly and from that which              event, expenditure which purports to be derived from the
would have been authorized if a Commission proposal                Commission 's power of initiative must be authorized by a
under Article 235 of the EC Treaty had been adopted ( but          properly reasoned Commission decision which indicates the
the proposal was not adopted), and it was unlawful for the         legal basis , establishes the framework and criteria for the
Commission to invite applications for such expenditure             expenditure in question , and is notified to the Member
without a basic measure and on the basis of a budget line          States .
alone . Furthermore, the invitation could not be justified on
the basis that the grants would support pilot studies or
preparatory action because it amounted to the initiation of
substantive action, and exceeded the powers of initiative of       In the present case the Commission, in a memorandum
the Commission . The invitation was also unsupported by            circulated to national authorities and to the public,
adequate reasoning.                                                published an invitation to organizations to apply for grants
                                                                   in respect of poverty and social exclusion . The proposed
                                                                   expenditure in question would if incurred comprise
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants       expenditure indistinguishable from that covered by
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                  ( expired ) Poverty 3 and ( draft ) Poverty 4 . Such expenditure
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of            ( Poverty 3 and 4 ) required authorization by a Council
competence, infringement of an essential procedural                decision under Article 235 of the EC Treaty and it was
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .                      unlawful for the Commission to invite applications for such
                                                                   expenditure without a basic measure and on the basis of
                                                                   budgetary remarks alone . Furthermore, the invitation could
                                                                   not be justified on the basis that the grants would support
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 15
pilot studies or preparatory action because it amounted to             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
the initiation of substantive action, and exceeded the powers           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
of initiative of the Commission . The invitation was also
                                                                                                  Case C-243/96 )
unsupported by adequate reasoning.
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 269/31 )
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of
                                                                       12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
competence, infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                       Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent,
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      prescribed period the laws, regulations and
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Commission Directive 93/62/EEC (') of 5 July 1993
                         ( Case C-241 /96 )                                  setting out the implementing measures concerning
                           ( 96/C 269/30 )                                   the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
                                                                             establishments pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                             92/33/EEC ( 2 )    on     the    marketing of  vegetable
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                   propagating and planting material other than seed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission ,
11 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande , of                        obligations under Article 6 of the abovementioned
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Directive and also under the EC Treaty,
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force               forward in Case C-236/96 ( 3 ); the time limit set by the
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992                       (') OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .
     introducing Community measures for the control of                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Newcastle disease ( 1 ), or notify the Commission thereof,        ( 3 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .
     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                                 ( Case C-244/96 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                                ( 96/C 269/32 )
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                        12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the                    Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis , acting as Agent,
Commission thereof. The Hellenic Republic has not notified             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
the Commission of any laws, regulations or administrative              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
provisions necessary to bring domestic law into line with the
Directive .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
(') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with :