CELEX: C2002/109/63
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-87/02: Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

4.5.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/37
Action brought on 5 March 2002 by the Commission                       Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                             Austria
                         (Case C-76/02)                                                          (Case C-87/02)
                        (2002/C 109/62)
                                                                                                (2002/C 109/63)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal Service, Wagner Centre             2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      represented by Michel Van Beek and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       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 Commission Directive 2000/71/EC of 7 November               —     Declare that, by the failure of the Abruzzo regional
      2000 to adapt the measuring methods as laid down in                    authority to check whether the plans for the construction
      Annexes I, II, III and IV to Directive 98/70/EC of the                 of a road to by-pass the city of Teramo (the ‘Lotto Zero’
      European Parliament and of the Council to technical                    project — an alternative to the SS 80 trunk road between
      progress as foreseen in Article 10 of that Directive (1), or           Termano and Giulianova), which fell within the scope of
      at any rate to communicate the same to the Commission,                 Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (1), required to be
      the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations           assessed for its effects on the environment, in accordance
      under Article 2(1) of that directive;                                  with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, the Italian Republic
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of
                                                                             Directive 85/337/EEC;
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC            Pleas in law and main arguments
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is such as to require
Member States to whom directives are addressed to transpose
such directives into national law so as to give full effect to
them before the expiry of the time-limit for transposition. The
time-limit prescribed in Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/71             Article 4(1) of the directive provides that projects of the classes
expired on 1 January 2000 but the Republic of Austria has not          listed in Annex I are to be made subject to an assessment in
adopted the requisite provisions.                                      accordance with Articles 5 to 10. According to Article 4(2),
                                                                       projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be made subject
                                                                       to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where
                                                                       Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
(1) OJ 2000 L 287, p. 46.                                              To that end, the Member States may inter alia specify certain
                                                                       types of projects as being subject to an assessment or may
                                                                       establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine
                                                                       which of the projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be
                                                                       subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/38               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.5.2002
The ‘Lotto Zero’ project is a project covered by Annex II to the         —     Infringement of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of
directive. The Commission takes the view that, by failing to                   the Court of First Instance: it is hardly possible to claim
ascertain whether that project required to be assessed for its                 that the matter of direct liability of the Community was
environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of                   totally absent from the application initiating proceedings
the directive, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under                and that it only appeared as a new plea in law in the
Article 4(2).                                                                  reply.
(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements
Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International                   Biret et Cie SA against the judgment delivered on 11 Janu-
SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by                  ary 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  Instance of the European Communities in Case T-210/00
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret                      between Etablissements Biret et Cie SA and Council of
International SA and Council of the European Union,                      the European Union, supported by the Commission of
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                                        the European Communities
                                ties
                                                                                                   (Case C-94/02 P)
                         (Case C-93/02 P)
                         (2002/C 109/64)                                                            (2002/C 109/65)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret                      European Communities in Case T-210/00 between Etablisse-
International and Council of the European Union, supported               ments Biret et Cie SA and Council of the European Union,
by Commission of the European Communities, was brought                   supported by Commission of the European Communities,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
16 March 2002 by Biret International SA, represented by M. de            Communities on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements Biret et
Thoré and S. Rodrigues, with an address for service in                   Cie SA, represented by S. Rodrigues, with an address for
Luxembourg.                                                              service in Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
      of First Instance of the European Communities on                   —     set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
      11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00;                                        of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                               11 January 2002 in Case T-210/00;
—     uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;
      and                                                                —     uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;
                                                                               and
—     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
Pleas and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 300(7) EC: should the question as          Pleas and main arguments
      to whether the WTO Agreements have direct effect, quod
      non, be regarded by the Court of Justice as continuing to
      condition the liability of the Community for infringement
                                                                         The pleas and main arguments are similar to those put forward
      of those Agreements, contrary to the requirements and
                                                                         in Case C-93/02 P (1).
      scope of Article 300(7) EC, the appellant requests the
      Court of Justice, after having failed to persuade the Court
      of First Instance and relying on its role of maintaining the
                                                                         (1) See p. 38 of this Official Journal.
      unity of the interpretation of Community law, to develop
      its case-law and acknowledge that all or part of the WTO
      Agreements have direct effect.