CELEX: C1995/119/15
Language: en
Date: 1995-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 12 October 1994, in the case of The Queen against the Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte: Eunice Sutton (Case C-66/95)

13 . 5 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/7
Action brought on 8 March 1995 by the Hellenic Republic               3 . Aid for the production of olive oil
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case C-61/95 )                                 The Commission deducted 10% from the overall
                           ( 95/C 119/14 )                                expenditure, owing to inadequacies which it found in
                                                                          supervision of the payment of aid to producers of olive
                                                                          oil. However, those failings are attributable to objective
An action against the Commission of the European                          impossibility of which the Commission is aware and for
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                which the Greek authorities are not responsible.
European Communities on 8 March 1 995 by the Hellenic
Republic, represented by Panayiotis Milonopoulos, of the
Special Legal Service for the European Communities of the             4. Aid for the production of cotton
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and by Meletis Tzotzanis, Head
of the Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of                    The Commission's refusal to allow as Community
Agriculture, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 expenditure 50 % of the expenditure in the cotton sector
the Greek Embassy, 177 Val Ste . Croix.                                   must be annulled because the Decision was adopted in a
                                                                          manner which constitutes an infringement of the rights
                                                                          of defence afforded to the Member States by Regulation
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              ( EEC ) No 729/70 on the financing of the common
                                                                          agricultural policy. In fact, although at the official
                                                                          meeting with the Greek authorities the representatives
1 , annul Commission Decision E(94 ) 3308 Rev. of                         of the Commission made no mention of cotton,
     21 December 1994 on the clearance of accounts of the
                                                                          the Commission's Director-General for Agriculture
     Member States in connection with expenditure financed                suddenly announced his decision to disallow 50 % of the
     by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  aid made available for the cotton sector .
     Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee Section, for the 1991
     financial year, in respect of the sectors challenged in this
     action and the corresponding amounts;                            5 . Tobacco
2, order the Commission to pay the costs of these                         The    Commission's       Decision   to disallow   certain
     proceedings.                                                         expenditure concerning subsidies for leaf tobacco is
                                                                          dated 21 December 1994 . However, the relevant report
                                                                          on which that Decision was based was handed to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Greek Permanent Representation one day later, that is
                                                                          to say on 22 December 1994. By taking that action the
                                                                          Commission infringed the Hellenic Republic's rights of
1 . Levy in the milk sector                                               defence. Futhermore, the Decision concerning the
                                                                          calculation of expenditure in the tobacco sector must
     The Commission's disallowance as Community                           be annulled on account of the erroneous assessment by
                                                                          the Commission of the factual circumstances and
     expenditure of an amount of Dr 1 592 000 000 is
     unlawful, since it is based on incomplete and                        infringement of the limits of its discretionary power.
     contradictory reasoning and infringes the principles of
     sound administration and of the protection of legitimate
     expectations. In its prior summary report on the
     clearance of accounts for the 1991 financial year the
     Commission aroused the expectation that it would not
     impose any correction on Greece. However, in its final
     decision, against which this action is brought, it gave as
     its reason the United Kingdom's abandonment of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     actions for annulment brought by it before the Court            Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     against decisions concerning the clearance of                    12 October 1994, in the case of The Queen against the
     expenditure in the milk and milk products sector.                       Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte:
                                                                                               Eunice Sutton
                                                                                             ( Case C-66/95 )
2 . Levy for exceeding the national guaranteed quantity
                                                                                               ( 95/C 119/15 )
     The Commission's refusal to allow Dr 372 933 493 as
     Community expenditure for failure to notify statistical          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     data in connection with direct sales, constitutes a misuse       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     of its discretionary power. Moreover, the decision in           Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 12 October 1994, which
     question is unlawful, since it is based on statistical data      was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1995 , for a
     which the Commission did not evaluate in an objective            preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
     manner, since it took account only of the applications           Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte: Eunice
     for the grant of approval .                                      Sutton, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 119/8              | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 5 . 95
Where a claimant is entitled to a national social security                   or Article 19 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 is
benefit by virtue of falling within the scope of Council                     amplified ?
Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men               (!) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
and women in matters of social security ( 1 ) does Community
law, in the circumstances of the present case, entitle the
claimant to interest on the award of benefit and, if so:
   (i ) from what date is interest payable ?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State,
  (ii ) what shall the rate of interest be ?                             Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak, by order of that court of
                                                                         8 March 1995 in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
( iii ) is interest to be calculated only on the balance which           Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
          falls due after off-setting, in accordance with national                                  Zuid-Holland
          overlapping rules, any other benefit payments made
                                                                                                   (Case C-72/95 )
          for the same period ?
                                                                                                    ( 95/C 119/17
H OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Raad van
                                                                         State, Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ( State Council,
                                                                         Administrative Appeal Section) of 8 March 1 995 , which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 14 March 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of BV Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer                   Kraaijeveld and Others against Gedeputeerde Staten van
Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 9 February              Zuid Holland ( Zuid-Holland Provincial Executive ), on the
1995 in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co . KG v.
                                                                         following questions:
Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung, third
                 party: Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         1 . Must the expression 'canalization and flood-relief
                            ( Case C-68/95 )                                 works ' in Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
                              ( 95/C 119/16 )                                27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                             public and private projects on the environment (*) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       interpreted as also covering certain types of work on a
European Communities by an order of the Hessischer                           dike running alongside waterways ?
Verwaltungsgerichtshof,              Eighth     Senate     ( Higher
Administrative Court, Hesse ) of 9 February 1995 , which                 2 . Having regard in particular to the expressions 'projects'
was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1 995 , for a                 and 'modifications to projects' employed in the
preliminary ruling in the case of T. Port GmbH & Co. KG                      Directive, does it make any difference to the answer to
v. Bundesanstalt fiir Landeswirtschaft und Ernâhrung                         question 1 whether what is involved is :
( Federal Office for Agriculture and Food ), third party:
Federal Republic of Germany, on the following                                (a ) the construction of a new dike;
questions :
                                                                             ( b ) the relocation of an existing dike;
1 . Does Article 16 ( 3 ) or Article 30 of Council Regulation
       ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 H put the                       (c ) the reinforcement and/or widening of an existing
                                                                                   dike;
       Commission under a duty to deal with cases of hardship
       arising because operators of category A have difficulties
       in continuing trading owing to the fact that, on the basis
                                                                             ( d) the replacement in situ of a dike whether or not the
                                                                                   new dike is stronger and/or wider than the old one;
       of the reference years to be taken into account under                       or
       Article 19 (2 ) of that Regulation, they are allocated an
       exceptionally low quota and cannot switch to the                      (e ) a combination of two or more of ( a ) to ( d )?
       market for ACP and Community bananas ?
                                                                         3 . Must Article 2(1 ) and Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be
2 . Is Article 19 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 invalid               interpreted as meaning that — if a Member State lays
       in so far as it makes no provision for taking other                   down in its national implementing legislation wrong
       reference years into account in cases of hardship in the              specifications or criteria and/or thresholds within the
       transitional period ?                                                 meaning of Article 4 (2 ) of the Directive for a project
                                                                             listed in Annex II — an obligation exists by virtue of
3 . In the event that one of the above two questions is                      Article 2 ( 1 ) of the Directive to subject the project to an
       answered in the affirmative : on what conditions is the               environmental impact assessment if the project is likely
       national court authorized to take provisional measures                to have 'significant effects on the environment by virtue
       in proceedings for the grant of interim relief until                  inter alia of [its] nature, size or location' within the
       such time as hardship arrangements are introduced                     meaning of Article 2 ( 1 )?