CELEX: C2002/109/59
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-70/02: Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

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;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 109/35
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          I.    set aside the judgment, on the ground that it applied
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Community law wrongly and inconsistently, in so far as
                                                                                it confirms the decision of the Commission of 21 January
(a)   Failure to implement Article 8(6) of Directive 97/66.                     1998 No 98/247/ECSC to impose a fine on the appellant
                                                                                despite the fact that it belonged to the KTS Group;
      Article 6(6) of Decree No 171/98 only partially
      implements Article 8(6) of the directive in question, since
      it makes no reference to the obligation to inform the               In the alternative:
      public of the possibilities set out in Articles 8(1), (2), (3)
      and (4) of that directive to prevent the presentation of
      CLI (‘calling line identification’) of incoming calls if CLI        II.   set aside the judgment, on the ground that it misapplied
      has been eliminated, and of the possibility of eliminating                Community law, in so far as it confirms Article 1 of
      the presentation of connected line identification to the                  the decision of the Commission of 21 January 1998
      calling user.                                                             No 98/247/ECSC, according to which the infringement
                                                                                of the rules of competition imputed to AST is held to
(b) Failure to implement Article 9(b) of Directive 97/66.                       have continued until the date of the decision itself;
      Article 9(b) of the directive places an obligation on the
      Member States to ensure that there are procedures                   III. set aside the judgment, on the ground that it infringed
      governing the elimination of the presentation of calling                  the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination,
      line identification on a per-line basis for organisations                 in so far as it does not uphold the appellant’s request that
      dealing with emergency calls and recognised as such by a                  the fine be reduced by 40 % in view of the appellant’s
      Member State, for the purpose of answering such calls.                    cooperation in the course of the procedure;
      The Italian legislation does not appear to have implement-
      ed that provision.
                                                                          in any event,
(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.
                                                                          IV. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas and main arguments
Appeal brought on 28 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA against the judgment delivered
on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court                     The appellant claims that the contested judgment should be
of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                   set aside on the following grounds:
Cases T-45/98 and T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen
Stainless GmbH and Acciai Speciali Terni SpA and Com-
            mission of the European Communities                           —     erroneous and inconsistent application of Community
                                                                                law by imposing a fine on AST despite the fact that AST
                                                                                belongs to the KTS group, which was subject to a fixed-
                         (Case C-73/02 P)                                       sum fine;
                         (2002/C 109/60)
                                                                          —     misapplication of Community law in finding that the
                                                                                infringement of the competition rules by AST was
                                                                                continuous;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-45/98 and                      —     breach of the principle of equaltreatment and non-
T-47/98 between Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH and Acciai                         discrimination in the reduction applied to the fine in
Speciali Terni SpA and Commission of the European Com-                          consideration of the appellant’s cooperation during the
munities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         procedure.
European Communities on 8 February 2002 by Thyssenkrupp
Acciai Speciali Terni SpA, represented by Giulia Di Tommaso
and Andrea Giardina, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.