CELEX: C2000/047/36
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-467/99: Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

C 47/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
4. in the event that it should dismiss the claims set out above,       — The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance failed
    set aside the contested judgment to the extent that it                 to take a decision on the second supplementary ground of
    upholds the decision adopted by the Commission in File                 annulment of the Commission decision contested in
    880412 P3, considering ineligible the entire amount                    Case T-182/96 alleging infringement of the legislation
    requested under sub-headings 14.1.4, 14.2.6, 14.2.7,                   applicable to the ESF (no margin of discretion), put forward
    14.3.1(b) and (c), 14.3.3 and 14.3.5 relating to the ‘Pirites          by the appellant in its reply in that case.
    Alentejanas’ project, sub-headings 14.3.11, 14.3.8 and
    14.9 relating to ‘Tintas Robbialac’ project and sub-heading        — The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance
    14.3.9 relating to the Sapec project, in respect of which              misapplied Article 190 of the EC Treaty (now Article 253
    annulment is sought on the following grounds:                          EC) in respect of sub-headings 14.1.4, 14.2.6, 14.2.7,
                                                                           14.3.1(b) and (c), 14.3.3 and 14.3.5 relating to the ‘Pirites
    — the material inaccuracy of the findings of fact made by              Alentejanas’ project, sub-headings 14.3.11, 14.3.8 and
         the Court of First Instance;                                      14.9 relating to ‘Tintas Robbialac’ project and sub-heading
                                                                           14.3.9 relating to the Sapec project, inasmuch as it based
                                                                           itself on matters of fact which are materially wrong or
    — error in law arising out of inconsistent reasoning;                  inaccurate.
5. accordingly, on those grounds, annul Commission                     — The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance
    Decision C(96) 1184 of 14 August 1996 in so far as it                  committed an error with regard to the existence of abuse
    considers ineligible as a whole, the amounts requested                 of rights and breach of the rights of the defence, of the
    under sub-headings 14.1.4, 14.2.6, 14.2.7, 14.3.1(b) and               principles of good faith, of the protection of legitimate
    (c), 14.3.3 and 14.3.5 relating to the ‘Pirites Alentejanas’           expectations and of acquired rights, inasmuch as it based
    project, sub-headings 14.3.11, 14.3.8 and 14.9 relating to             itself on matters of fact which are materially wrong or
    ‘Tintas Robbialac’ project and sub-heading 14.3.9 relating             inaccurate.
    to the Sapec project;
                                                                       — The appellant submits that the incorrect findings of fact
                                                                           made by the Court of First Instance led it to commit an
6. set aside the third paragraph of the operative part of the
                                                                           error in law in the present case by declaring unfounded
    contested judgment inasmuch as it orders PARTEX to bear
                                                                           the claim as to misuse of powers in the decision contested
    its own costs in Case T-182/96;
                                                                           in Case T-182/96.
7. order the Commission to pay the costs;
                                                                       (1) OJ 1997 C 26, p. 9.
8. uphold as well founded the application for legal aid and,
    accordingly, grant the appellant legal aid in the present
    case.
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 3 December 1999 by the Commission
— The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance                of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
    committed an error in law by infringing the legislation                                            lic
    applicable to the ESF by finding that in a case such as the
    present case, where a Member State has already certified
    the accuracy of the facts and accounts of the final claim                                  (Case C-467/99)
    for payment, that State may yet alter its assessment of the
    claim in question where it finds irregularities which had
    not become apparent before.                                                                 (2000/C 47/36)
— The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
    committed an error in law by declaring inadmissible the            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 December
    supplementary ground put forward by PARTEX in its reply            1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    in Case T-182/96, claiming breach of the rules on the              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    sharing of competences between Member States and the               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
    Commission.                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                       Kirchberg.
— The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance
    committed an error in law contrary to the legislation              The Commission claims that the Court should:
    applicable to the ESF by finding that the rules on the
    sharing of competences between Member States and the               — declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
    Commission had not been infringed.                                     administrative provisions necessary to transpose fully
 ---pagebreak--- 19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/23
    Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 3 June 1990           Pleas in law and main arguments
    on package travel, package holidays and package tours (1)
    so far as concerns passenger shipping companies, the               Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), a
    Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    that directive;                                                    each Member State to which it is addressed. A Member State
                                                                       must adopt all the provisions necessary to ensure the effective
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                        application of directives, in accordance with the objectives
                                                                       pursed by them, and may not plead provisions, practices or
                                                                       circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        justify a failure to comply with its obligations or time-limits
                                                                       under those directives.
The Greek authorities announced that they would amend
Article 7 of the Presidential Decree so that the obligation to         It is undisputed that the Italian Republic was to provide the
insure laid down therein would also cover passenger shipping           Commission with the information required under Article 8(3)
companies.                                                             of Directive 91/689/EEC in the manner prescribed by Decision
                                                                       96/302/EC.
The Commission considers that it is the task of the Greek              It has failed to do so, nor does the Commission consider itself
authorities to undertake in good time the procedures necessary         to have properly received the information following the
in order for the provisions of the directive at issue to be            reasoned opinion.
transposed fully into Greek law.
                                                                       The Commission therefore finds that the Italian Republic has
The Commission states that up until now the Hellenic Republic          failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
has failed to adopt the appropriate measures for the full
incorporation into Greek law of Article 7 of Directive
90/314/EEC so far as concerns shipping companies.                      (1) Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazard-
                                                                           ous waste. OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
                                                                       (2) Commission Decision 96/302/EC of 17 April 1996.
(1) OJ No L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 59.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                       für Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by order of that court of
                                                                       9 September 1999 in the case of CLEAN CAR Autoservice
Action brought on 7 December 1999 by the Commission                    GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna and (2) the Republic
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                                             of Austria
                         (Case C-469/99)                                                          (Case C-472/99)
                          (2000/C 47/37)                                                           (2000/C 47/38)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 December
                                                                       Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       9 September 1999, received at the Court Registry on
represented by Lena Ström, of its Legal Service, and Giacinto
                                                                       9 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the Legal
                                                                       CLEAN CAR Autoservice GmbH against (1) the City of Vienna
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                       and (2) the Republic of Austria, on the following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Where, as in the present case, a Member State (Austria) has
                                                                       not prescribed any national rules enabling national courts to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            decide and to award or, as the case may be, to apportion, in
                                                                       relation to the parties to the proceedings, the costs of a
— Declare that, by failing to provide the Commission with              reference for a preliminary ruling, how is Article 104(5) of the
    the information required under Article 8(3) of Council             Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European
    Directive 91/689/EEC (1), in the format established in             Communities (1) to be interpreted?
    Decision 96/302/EC (2), the Italian Republic has failed to
    fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 91/689/EEC
    and the EC Treaty;                                                 (1) OJ C 65 of 6 March 1999, p. 30.
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.