CELEX: C2002/044/46
Language: en
Date: 2002-02-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-303/01: Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European Communities

C 44/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.2.2002
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant for               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      the ensuing damage, in particular those arising from the
      loss of Sickness Insurance cover and other non-material
      damage;                                                            —     annul the decision of the Commission not to take action
                                                                               on complaint No 1999/5330;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to take the following
                                                                               measures:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               1.    require the Government of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                     not to implement the decision to alter the route
                                                                                     followed by Subsection II (Ebro river crossing) of the
The applicant, a former official of the defendant institution, at                    Zaragoza-Lleida section of the Madrid-Barcelona-
present retired, contests the withdrawal, with retrospective                         French border high speed line, known as Solución
effect, of family allowance in respect of a dependent daughter.                      Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B),
The contested measure is based on ‘evidence that the income                          declared environmentally viable by the Spanish
from gainful employment of [his] daughter exceeds 40 % of                            Council of Ministers on 25 February 1999 and
the basic salary of an official in Grade D 4/1’.                                     approved by way of resolution by the Secretary of
                                                                                     State for Infrastructure and Transport of 17 March
                                                                                     1999;
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:
                                                                               2.    further require the Kingdom of Spain to ensure that
—     unlawfulness of the act on the ground of misuse of
                                                                                     those works be carried out using the only properly
      powers (lack and inadequacy of reasons, erroneous
                                                                                     approved route adopted by resolution of the Sec-
      assumptions and distortion of the facts)
                                                                                     retary of State for Town and Country Planning of
                                                                                     24 February 1995 as Alternativa Norte (Northern
—     infringement of Article 2(5) of Annex VII to the Staff                         Option); and
      Regulations
                                                                               3.    any other measure which in consequence of the
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination                                  preceding orders may be deemed appropriate,
                                                                                     including a warning from the Commission to the
—     breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and                         Spanish authorities that enforcement measures
      failure to protect acquired rights.                                            could be adopted in the absence of adequate com-
                                                                                     pliance, including infringement proceedings and/or
                                                                                     the withdrawal of European funding for the project.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento
de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   The applicant states that it is one of the municipal authorities
                                                                         affected by the route of the High Speed Madrid-Zaragoza-
                         (Case T-303/01)                                 French Border railway line, for which the Spanish Government
                                                                         obtained funding from the Community cohesion fund (Project
                                                                         No 95/11/65/007) (1). Initially, the Spanish administrative
                          (2002/C 44/46)                                 authorities approved the route for Subsection II of the
                                                                         Zaragoza-Lleida section, which opted, from the two possible
                                                                         choices at the Source of the Ebro, for the ‘Northern Option’,
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       which did not affect the protected area of the Soto de Aguilar,
                                                                         a riverside wilderness of great ecological and wildlife value
                                                                         within the municipality limits of the applicant. Subsequently,
                                                                         despite the report to the contrary drawn up by the competent
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                environmental authorities, the Spanish Government decided
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               to alter the route initially planned, opting for Solución Sur
European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntami-                    Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), which not only
ento de Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza), Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza,               is the less environmentally friendly but is also the more
Spain), represented by Javier Ariño Barcelona, lawyer.                  expensive.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/27
On 1 December 1999, the applicant informed the Commission                  The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
of those facts, requesting it to order the Spanish Government
not to implement the decision relating to the Solución Sur
Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B) route and to opt               —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of
for the ‘Northern Alternative’, and to warn it that, if it failed to             12 November 2001 (1);
comply, the Community assistance received was to be returned
(Complaint No 1999/5330). As a result of that complaint, the
Commission invited the Spanish Government to make its                      —     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March
views known and, after examining the reply — to which the                        2001 (2), or in the alternative declare that Council Regu-
applicant has not had access, despite repeatedly requesting it                   lation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 is not
— the Commission decided to take no action on the case.                          applicable;
The applicant claims that, contrary to the view taken by the
Commission, the Spanish Government’s measures amount to                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings
an infringement of Community law, namely of:                                     in an amount to be specified later.
—      Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
       conservation of wild birds (2);
—      Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
       conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
       flora (3); and
—      legislation on the use of Community funding, in particular
       Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994
       establishing a Cohesion Fund (4).                                   Three of the applicants are Swedish citizens of Somali origin
                                                                           and the fourth is a non-profitmaking association registered
                                                                           under Swedish law, which inter alia provides support for
The applicant is of the view that, in the face of such flagrant            refugees and has assisted with financial transactions between
infringement of Community law by the Spanish authorities as                residents of Sweden and residents of Somalia.
pointed out in its complaint, the Commission should have
taken steps to defend Community law and that its decision not
to take action must accordingly be annulled.
                                                                           On 15 October 1999 the United Nations Security Council
( 1) OJ 1998 C 153, p. 172.                                                adopted UNSCR Resolution 1267 (1999), calling for inter alia
( 2) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.                                                  sanctions against the Taliban, which were extended by UNSCR
( 3) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.                                                  Resolution 1333 (2000) to cover Osama Bin Laden and
( 4) OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1.                                                  persons and bodies associated with him. On 6 March 2001
                                                                           the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 467/2001. Under
                                                                           Article 2 of that regulation all funds and other financial
                                                                           resources belonging to any natural or legal person, entity or
                                                                           body listed in Annex I are to be frozen. On the basis of
                                                                           Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 the Commission
                                                                           adopted Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001. As a result of the
Action brought on 10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden                       amendment of its list by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
and Others against the Council of the European Union                       the Security Council, the Commission decided to add a number
     and the Commission of the European Communities                        of other persons and bodies to Annex I to Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 467/2001, including the applicants.
                          (Case T-306/01)
                           (2002/C 44/47)                                  The applicants submit that Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 467/2001 — which provides that the applicants’ funds are
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                       to be frozen and that resources are not to be made available to
                                                                           them — exceeds the powers which the Council has under
                                                                           Article 60 and 301 EC and is in breach of Article 249 EC. The
                                                                           Council does not have the power to adopt sanctions against
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                individuals and organisations and has misused its powers.
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         Moreover, in practice, the Council and Commission have
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 delegated decisions as to which persons or organisations
10 December 2001 by Abdirisak Aden and Others represented                  should be included in Annex I to the Taliban Sanctions
by Leif Silbersky and Thomas Olsson.                                       Committee.