CELEX: C2000/316/34
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-342/00: Action brought on 15 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

C 316/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
having regard to the action for annulment brought on                     The Commission’s total failure to take into consideration the
29 February 2000, and Articles 83(1) and 81 of the EC Treaty             observations which CNPA and DLR were prompted to submit
                                                                         as a result of the publication of the contested act and the
                                                                         guidelines gives them a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
—     declare that the admissibility of the appeal, which depends        CNPA and DLR have a legitimate interest, in the light of the
      on the legal classification of the contested act, is insepar-      collective interests represented by them, in ensuring that the
      able from the substance of the case;                               Commission, the guarantor of Community competition policy,
                                                                         at least fulfil its task of instruction in that field, by answering
                                                                         such objections as may be put to it. To conceive of the
—     declare that the contested act infringes Articles 83(1) and        consultation procedure in any other way would deprive
      81 of the EC Treaty;                                               Article 83(1) of the Treaty of any actual effect.
—     declare it void.                                                   (1) OJ L 336, p. 21.
In the alternative, having regard to Article 230 of the EC
Treaty,
                                                                         Action brought on 15 September 2000 by the Com-
—     declare that the appellants have provided proof that they          mission of the European Communities against the
      have a direct and individual interest in challenging the                                    Kingdom of Spain
      legality of Regulation (EEC) No 2790/1999 of
      22 December 1999 (1);                                                                         (Case C-342/00)
—     declare it void for the reasons set out below;                                                (2000/C 316/34)
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 Sep-
order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   tember 2000 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal
                                                                         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Infringement by the Court of First Instance of its own
      Rules of Procedure, and also of Articles 83(1), 81(1) and          —     Declare that, by failing to have adopted the laws, regu-
      230 of the EC Treaty: the Court gave judgment before the                 lations and administrative provisions needed in order to
      time-limit of three months for interveners to submit                     comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of 3 March
      observations had even expired.                                           1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assess-
                                                                               ment of the effects of certain public and private projects
                                                                               on the environment or, in any event, by failing to
—     Infringement of Articles 83(1) and 81 of the Treaty: it is               have informed the Commission about any such laws,
      plain that an act of the Commission, even if it is called a              regulations or administrative provisions, the Kingdom of
      regulation, may not escape review by the judicature if it                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      infringes the very terms of the Treaty. Contrary to what                 directive;
      the contested order finds, the question whether the action
      was admissible could not be settled without consideration          —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      of the substance.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Article 230(4) of the Treaty: the mere
      fact that the Commission calls the contested act a                 The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
      regulation does not make it a regulation within the                Case C-335/00 (3); the period for transposition expired on
      meaning of Article 83(1) of the Treaty if, as the appellants       14 March 1999.
      maintain, it infringes precisely those provisions of
      Article 81, and that is so whether the contested act is            (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
      individual or general in scope.                                    (2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (OJ L 175,
                                                                             5.7.1985, p. 40).
                                                                         (3) See p. 16 of this Official Journal.
Moreover, the appellants have provided proof that they have a
direct and individual interest in the annulment they request.