CELEX: C2002/109/57
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-67/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

4.5.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/33
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Italian                            under Article 87(3) of the Treaty. That constitutes not
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                         only a methodological error but also a failure to state
                              munities                                       reasons.
                          (Case C-66/02)                               (d) Specifically as regards the reference to Article 87(3)(b) of
                                                                             the Treaty, reconstruction of the origins of the Ciampi
                                                                             law and of Legislative Decree No 153/99 clearly shows
                         (2002/C 109/56)                                     how the Italian legislature sought, by means of the
                                                                             various measures adopted, to bring about a significant
                                                                             structural change in the Italian market for banking
                                                                             services: the full and final privatisation of all Italian banks.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    In order to achieve that objective it was necessary for the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 banks to divest themselves of any controlling interests
Communities on 28 February 2002 by the Italian Republic,                     still held in savings banks and local banks. The elimination
represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, and M. Fiorilli,                  or reduction of the Italian banks’ substantial and persist-
avvocato dello Stato.                                                        ent holdings of public funds, or at least of funds that are
                                                                             not attractive to private investors did not, contrary to
                                                                             the Commission’s clear finding, distort competition by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  favouring the recipient undertakings over others but, as
                                                                             in the case of the southern Italian public banks, resulted
                                                                             in the reduction of distortions existing prior to the reform
—     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 11 December 2001                    in question between genuinely private banks and those
      in proceeding no C-54/A/2000/EC against the Italian                    which are private in form only, but not as regards
      Republic, notified on 13 January 2002, in that there are               the control of capital. In the opinion of the Italian
      insufficient grounds for holding that the fiscal measures              Government, the full and final privatisation of the Italian
      accompanying the reform of the Italian banking system                  banks constitutes a ‘project of common European interest’
      constitute ‘State aid’;                                                which, under Article 87(3)(b), justifies a system of aid to
                                                                             promote its implementation.
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Italian Government claims that the contested decision is
unlawful for the following reasons:
                                                                       Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
(a)   The Commission failed to comply with the obligation to                   of the European Communities against Ireland
      state the reasons upon which the adopted decision was
      based.
                                                                                                  (Case C-67/02)
(b) The law, which has been called in question with regard
      to the effect on competition of the accompanying fiscal                                    (2002/C 109/57)
      measure, must be regarded as the final part of a process
      of reform of the Italian system of credit and, therefore, as
      part of an economic reform which should be assessed in
      its general and Community law context. The relevance of
      that law cannot be appreciated unless the state of the           An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      sector prior to the reform is taken into account. The            Justice of the European Communities on 28 February 2002 by
      contested decision wholly fails to consider those aspects.       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                       by Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service
(c)   In addressing the Italian Government’s counter-argu-             in Luxembourg
      ments the Commission does not distinguish between
      those concerned with the issue whether the fiscal
      measures under investigation may be characterised as             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      ‘State aid’ and those concerned with the alternative issue
      whether, if those measures are found to be ‘State aid’,
      they qualify for exemption. The Commission possessed             —     declare that Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations
      all the information required to assess whether the law in              under Council Directive 79/923/EEC (1) on the quality
      question constituted a prohibited ‘State aid’ within the               required of shellfish waters by reason of its failure to
      meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, or whether it may              adopt programmes for all of its designated shellfish
      be considered to be compatible with the common market                  waters in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/34                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.5.2002
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                 administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
                                                                                 with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
                                                                                 system (1), or at any rate to communicate the same to the
                                                                                 Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
The adoption by Ireland of the Quality of Shellfish Waters                       its obligations under that directive;
(Amendment) Regulations 2001 brought its legislation into
conformity with Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC by requir-               (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
ing programmes in respect of all designated waters. The
Commission is not, however, in possession of any information
indicating that Ireland has similarly rectified its position with
regard to its failure to adopt all the programmes required by              Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 5 of the directive. It is not sufficient merely to introduce
the requirement into national law — the programmes must be                 The third paragraph of Article 249 EC provides that a directive
established in practice in accordance with Article 5.                      is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
                                                                           Member State to which it is addressed. According to the first
                                                                           paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are to take all
The Commission is in possession of official confirmation by                appropriate measures, whether general or specific, to ensure
the Irish authorities that no pollution prevention programme               fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
for designated shellfish waters had been adopted as of                     resulting from actions taken by the institutions of the Com-
14 December 2000. Subsequently, the Commission has not                     munity.
been informed of any change to this position, whereas,
pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, programmes should
                                                                           The Member States are obliged to transpose the directive into
have been in place for all designated waters within six years of
                                                                           national law by the due date, in such a way that the
the designation.
                                                                           transposition process is completed before the expiry of the
                                                                           time-limit fixed for transposition. That time-limit expired on
                                                                           8 April 1999, but Austria has not adopted the necessary
The Commission is, therefore, of the opinion that Ireland has              measures.
failed to fulfill its obligations under the directive.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6.
(1) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47.
                                                                           Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                       (Case C-70/02)
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                                   (2002/C 109/59)
                                Austria
                            (Case C-68/02)                                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March
                           (2002/C 109/58)                                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Aresu and M. Shotter, acting as Agents.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 —     Declare that, by not having adopted all the measures
28 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                               necessary to implement Articles 8(6) and 9(b) of Directive
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Com-                         97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
mission’s Legal Service, and Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,                    Council (1) of 15 December 1997 concerning the pro-
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                  cessing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
Escobar Guerrero, Legal Adviser, Wagner Centre C 254,                            the telecommunications sector, the Italian Republic has
Kirchberg.                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;