CELEX: C1997/009/11
Language: en
Date: 1997-01-11 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-76/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Royale Belge SA (Officials - Insurance against accidents and occupational diseases)

No C 9/6               LIN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11 . . 97
  1 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/                                       ( Sixth Chamber )
       EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
       of certain public and private projects on the                                           of 24 October 1996
       environment must be interpreted as including certain              in Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
       types of work on a dyke running alongside waterways.                European Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd ( 1 )
                                                                          (Competition — Groups of companies — Article 85 (1 ) of
                                                                                                     the EC Treaty)
 2 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                                          ( 97/C 9/10 )
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC is to
       be interpreted as including not only construction of a
       new dyke but also modification of an existing dyke                                 (Language of the case: French)
       involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening,
       replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider                      published in the European Court Reports)
       than the old one, or a combination of such works.
                                                                         In Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV (Agent: Werner
                                                                         Kleinmann ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                         of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
 3 ) — Article 4 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC and
                                                                         Chamber ) of 12 January 1995 in Case T-102/92 Viho v.
           point 10 (e) of Annex II must be interpreted as
                                                                         Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-17, seeking to have that
           meaning that a Member State which establishes the
                                                                         judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
           criteria or thresholds necessary to classify projects
                                                                         being Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
           relating to dykes at a level such that, in practice,
                                                                         Bernd Langeheine ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, — the
           all such projects are exempted in advance from the
                                                                         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
           requirement of an impact assessment exceeds the               President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H.
           limits of its discretion within the meaning of
                                                                         Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate­
           Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the Directive unless all
                                                                         General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
           projects excluded could, when viewed as a whole,              24 October 1996, in which it:
           be regarded as not being likely to have significant
           effects on the environment.
                                                                         1 . Dismisses the appeal.
       — Where under national law a court must or may                    2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
           raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a
           binding national rule which have not been put                 (!) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 10 .
           forward by the parties, it must, for matters within
           its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion
           whether the legislative or administrative
           authorities of the Member State have remained
           within the limits of their discretion within the
           meaning of Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the
                                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           Directive, and take account thereof when
           examining the action for annulment.                                                    ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                               of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in     Case   C-76/95 : Commission of the European
      — Where that discretion has been exceeded and
                                                                                      Communities v. Royale Beige SA ( J )
           consequently the national provisions must be set
           aside in that respect, it is for the authorities of the       (Officials — Insurance against accidents and occupational
           Member State, according to their respective                                                   diseases)
           powers, to take all the general or particular                                              ( 97/C 9/11 )
           measures necessary to ensure that projects are
           examined in order to determine whether they are
           likely to have significant effects on the                                     (Language of the case: French)
           environment and, if so, to ensure that they are
           subject to an impact assessment.                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                   published in the European Court Reports)
0 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p. 40 .                               In Case C-76/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Jean-Luc
                                                                        Fagnart) v. Royale Beige SA ( Counsel: Francois van der
                                                                        Mensbrugghe ) — application for an order that the insurers
                                                                        pay the Commission the lump sum allegedly due from the
 ---pagebreak---  11.1.97            1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9 / 7
Commission to one of its officials on the ground of                  part — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.
occupational illness by virtue of Article 73 of the Staff            Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
Regulations of officials of the European Communities —               President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,             Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ). G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G.                Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-              Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                  which it:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 1996, in
which it:
                                                                     1 . Dismisses the appeal.
1 . Orders Royal Belge SA, Assurances Générales de
     France SA, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Les                  2 . Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
     Mutuelles du Mans, Assurantie van de Belgische
     Boerenbond SA, Hannover SA, Securitas AG and
                                                                     0 ) OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995, p . 6 .
     Condor to pay the Commission the sum of Bfrs
     25 794 194, plus interest at the rate of 8 % from 6 May
     1994.
2 . Orders Royal Belge SA, Assurances Générales de
     France SA, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Les
     Mutuelles du Mans, Assurantie van de Belgische
     Boerenbond SA, Hannover SA, Securitas AG and                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Condor to pay the costs.                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                          of 7 November 1996
(') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
                                                                     in    Case C-221/94: Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (')
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                     Non-transposition of Directive 91/263/EEC —
                                                                     Telecommunications        —     Telecommunications     terminal
                                                                         equipment — Mutual recognition of their conformity)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             ( 97/C 9/ 13
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 24 October 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg
and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL ) v.
       Commission of the European Communities ( J )                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Rejection of a complaint —
              Absence of Community interest)
                            ( 97/C 9/12 )                            In Case C-221 /94 : Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agents: Anders C. Jessen and Jean-Francis
                                                                     Pasquier) v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: Nicolas
               (Language of the case: French)                        Schmit) — application for a declaration that, by not
                                                                     adopting within the period laid down the laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                     Council Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       approximation of the laws of the Member States
         published in the European Court Reports)                    concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
                                                                     including the mutual recognition of their conformity (2 ),
                                                                     and, in any event, by not immediately informing the
In Case C-91/95 P: Roger Tremblay, Harry Kestenberg                  Commission of such measures, the Grand Duchy of
and Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL )            Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
( Counsel: Jean-Claude Fourgoux ), the other party to the            the Directive and in particular pursuant to Article 17
proceedings being: Commission of the European                        thereof — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.
Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and Géraud de                Mancini , President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.
Bergues ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of              Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
First Instance ( Second Chamber ) of 24 January 1995 in              Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A.
Case T-5/93 Tremblay and Others v. Commission [ 1995]                Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the REgistrar, has given
ECR 11-185 , seeking to have that judgment set aside in              a judgment on 7 November 1996, in which it: