CELEX: C2000/335/59
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-339/00: Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

C 335/34                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25.11.2000
            the persons who acted were at fault (intention or            Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Ireland against
            negligence). The mere finding of objectively illegal                the Commission of the European Communities
            acts by individual employees in conjunction with a
            statement, concerning other employees, that the
            appellant acted intentionally in that regard, does not                                (Case C-339/00)
            satisfy the requirements of the fault principle, which
            must be observed also in EC Competition Law.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 335/59)
—    Infringements of procedural principles:                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 15 September 2000 by Ireland, represented
     —      The Court based its decision on facts that differed          by Mr David J. O’Hagan, Chief State Solicitor, acting as agent,
            from those which were the subject of the Com-                assisted by Mr Rory Brady, Senior Counsel and Mr Anthony
            mission’s decision: In its decision the Commission           M. Collins, Barrister at Law, of the Bar of Ireland, with an
            grounded the infringement of Article 81 EC upon a            address for service in Luxembourg at the Embassy of Ireland,
            bundle of measures which it characterised as a single        28, route d’Arlon.
            ‘infringement’. The Court did not confirm the facts
            relating to ‘2. Margins policy’ and to ‘6. Termination
            of Contracts’, nor, therefore, the single ‘overall           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
            strategy’ which the Commission alleged to consist
            of 7 elements. Even if, in the Court’s view, the
            remaining individual measures, even viewed in iso-           a)    annul the decision contained in Commission Decision of
            lation, infringed Article 81(1) EC, it was not entitled            5 July 2000 (1) notified under document number C(2000)
            to substitute a different set of fact and then to                  1847 to exclude from Community financing
            assume that the Commission would have adopted                      EUR 4 844 345,35 in afforestation aid paid by Ireland
            the decision in that case too.                                     under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
                                                                               Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) for the years
                                                                               1997 and 1998;
     —      The Court failed to observe the principle of the right
            to a fair hearing, as it assessed, to the detriment of       b)    order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
            the appellant, consumer complaints on which it had                 ings.
            not been able to express its views during the
            administrative procedure.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     —      The Commission’s decision contains an inadequate
            statement of reasons and is therefore unlawful.
                                                                         The decision impugned purports to have legal basis in
                                                                         Council Regulation 729/70 (2). That regulation is incapable of
     —      The Court did not fulfil its duty to state reasons in        providing a legal basis because, at the date of adoption of the
            regard to the fine set by it.                                decision (5 July 2000), it had been repealed in its entirety by
                                                                         Article 16.1 of Council Regulation 1258/1999 of 17 May
                                                                         1999 (3) which entered into force on 3 July 1999. In the
                                                                         absence of a legal basis upon which it could have been
     —      The premature disclosure of the proposed decision            adopted, it is submitted that the Commission lacked the power
            by the Commissioner responsible for competition              to make the decision.
            matters renders the decision unlawful in any event.
            An undertaking in the appellant’s situation is never
            in a position — as the Court of First Instance               Should the Commission be able to satisfy the Court that the
            demands — to be able to prove that the decision
                                                                         decision challenged in these proceedings is lawful, Ireland
            would have been different if the Commission had
                                                                         submits that it ought to be annulled by reference to any, or
            acted in accordance with the rules.                          indeed to all, of the following grounds:
                                                                         a)    Coillte Teoranta is a ‘private-law, natural or legal person’
(1) Not yet published in the ECR.                                              for the purposes of Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 2080/92 (4), and is therefore entitled to receive aid;
                                                                         b)    Coillte Teoranta is not a ‘public authority’ for the purposes
                                                                               of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92. It is a body incorporated
                                                                               under the Companies Acts and is therefore a ‘private-law
                                                                               legal person’, albeit one owned by the State or its agents;
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 335/35
c)     failure to comply with the duties of loyal co-operation,            Pleas in law and main arguments
       legal certainty and good administration;
                                                                           —     Error of law, in that the Court of First Instance exceeded
d)     breach of legitimate expectations.                                        the limits of its power of review and in so doing gave an
                                                                                 incorrect and unduly restrictive interpretation of the
                                                                                 second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations
(1) Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community                  of Officials: the fact that an official does not act in a
    financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
                                                                                 ‘managerial’ capacity is clearly not decisive and is not to
    the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
    Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 49).                        be found as a condition in the second paragraph of
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on                Article 17 of the Staff Regulations. Likewise, the insti-
    the financing of the common agricultural policy [OJ L 94,                    tution must be in a position to control the points of view
    28.04.70, p. 13 (SE SERI 70(1) p. 218)].                                     adopted by its officials, especially where they conflict
(3) on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160,                with those expressed at the time, or where the official
    26.06.1999, p. 103).                                                         expresses his views on matters in respect of which it is
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting              the Commission’s express intention to adopt a ‘neutral’
    a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture (OJ              policy. Last, it is difficult to see how a point of view
    L 215, 30.07.92, p. 96).                                                     addressed to an audience of ‘specialists’ is by nature less
                                                                                 damaging to the institution than if it were expressed in
                                                                                 other circumstances.
                                                                           —     Lack of reasoning.
Appeal brought on 15 September 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the judg-
ment delivered on 14 July 2000 by the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-82/99 between Michael Cwik and the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 18 September 2000 by the Com-
                         (Case C-340/00 P)                                 mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                                        Republic
                          (2000/C 335/60)
                                                                                                    (Case C-343/00)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2000 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                                    (2000/C 335/61)
European Communities in Case T-82/99 between Michael
Cwik and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Communities on 15 September 2000 by the Commission of                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 Septem-
the European Communities, represented by J. Currall, Legal                 ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Adviser, acting as Agent, and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels            represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal
Kirchberg.                                                                 Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
                                                                           —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force, within the
—      set aside the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber                    prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrat-
       of the Court of First Instance on 14 July 2000 in Case                    ive provisions needed in order to comply with Com-
       T-82/99 Michael Cwik v European Commission;                               mission Directive 98/87/EC of 13 November 1998
                                                                                 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the market-
—      accordingly, dismiss the applicant’s action in that case or,              ing of compound feedingstuffs (1), the French Republic
       in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
       Instance;                                                                 Directive 98/87/EC;
—      order the applicant to bear his own costs.                          —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.