CELEX: C1999/314/08
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-318/99: Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

C 314/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30.10.1999
Appeal brought on 11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
27 others against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     — annul the contested decision (1);
European Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areaco-
va S.A. and 30 others and the Council of the European                   — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-301/99 P)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (1999/C 314/07)                                1. The Commission maintains in the contested decision that
                                                                            the obligation to asses the aid in the light of an approval
An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third                previously given cannot apply where, as in the present
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                      case, that approval is accompanied by the reservation of a
Communities in Case T-12/96 between Areacova S.A. and 30                    right to examine individual cases involving the application
others and the Council of the European Union and the                        of the general scheme.
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  In reality, the fact that the letter approving the national
11 August 1999 by Areacova S.A. and 27 others, represented                  plans for the sector concerned reserved the right to
by Antonio Creus Carreras of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva                     examine the measures to be taken to implement those
Contreras Ynzenga and Albert Agustinoy Guilayn, of the                      plans and requested notification of those measures does
Madrid Bar, with an address for service care of Cuatrecasas                 not mean that, in carrying out the subsequent assessments,
Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels.                           the Commission was entitled to depart from the con-
                                                                            clusions previously reached by it, by evaluating the
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 measures in question as individual grants of aid and
                                                                            applying new parameters which differed from those used
(1) set aside the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Court of                 at the time when the sectoral plans were approved.
     First Instance in Case T-12/96 on account of all or some
     of the defects indicated, and give effect to all the legal         2. The Commission stases that a substantial number of the
     consequences flowing from the setting aside of that order,             measures examined were not in conformity with the
     either by expressly adjudicating on the merits of the case             sectoral plans, on the grounds that some of them did not
     or by referring the matter back to the Court of First                  fall within the types of intervention provided for by the
     Instance;                                                              national sectoral plans, that some grants of aid were not
                                                                            provided for by a specific intervention plan, and that
(2) order the respondent to the proceedings before the Court                others, although provided for by sectoral plans, did not
     of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs,               pursue any of the policy objectives described in general
     and likewise, in the event that the submissions put forward            terms in the national sectoral plans and did not lay down
     in support of the present appeal are wholly or partially               any detailed rules for carrying on activities supplementing,
     upheld, order the defendant in the proceedings at first                or in substitution for, the production of sugar.
     instance to pay the costs of those proceedings.
                                                                            On the basis of Article 46 of Regulation No 1785/81 (2)
                                                                            and Article 4 of Regulation No 1254/89 (3), the conformity
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             of the grants of aid-with the sectoral plans is, in essence,
                                                                            to be assessed in the light of the extent to which they
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                      correspond to the objectives and aims pursued as a whole
Case C-300/99 P.                                                            by those plans.
                                                                            The Commission has totally failed to state its position
                                                                            regarding the general compatibility of the initiatives adopt-
                                                                            ed with the objectives and aims pursued as a whole by
                                                                            the sectoral plans; it has merely raised the objections
                                                                            summarised above and/or examined the scope of the
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic                    measures in terms of the Community guidelines concern-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        ing aid. This constitutes a further defect in the contested
                                                                            decision, either because it infringes the Community rules
                                                                            or because it amounts to an inadequate statement of
                         (Case C-318/99)                                    reasons.
                         (1999/C 314/08)                                3. The Commission’s infringement of the rules governing the
                                                                            assessment of the aid in question and its fundamental
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   failure to evaluate the general compatibility of the measures
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                referred to above with the objectives and aims pursued as
Communities on 26 August 1999 by the Italian Republic,                      a whole by the sectoral plans undoubtedly influenced the
represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by                 decision to carry out an ‘in depth’ examination of the
Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address                     measures taken, resulting in an incorrect approach which
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue                     ultimately had a negative effect on the conclusions arrived
Marie-Adelaïde.                                                             at by the Commission.
 ---pagebreak--- 30.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 314/5
4. The Commission’s decision determines the element of aid             Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
     by applying the Community reference rate prevailing at            mission of the European Communities against the
     the date on which the grants of aid were disbursed. The                                 Kingdom of Belgium
     rate indicated by the Commission corresponds to that
     specified for the repayment of illegal aid in Communi-                                     (Case C-337/99)
     cation 97/C/273/03 from the Commission to the Member
     States.
                                                                                                (1999/C 314/10)
     That rate cannot be applied retroactively to the period
     which elapsed between the point in time at which the aid          An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
     was granted and the entry into force of the above                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     mentioned rules, since it is contrary to the principle of         10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
     legal certainty and the principle of the protection of            Communities, represented by Barry Doherty, of its Legal
     legitimate expectations.                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 236 of 7.9.1999, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 31.
(3) OJ L 126 of 9.5.1989, p. 1.                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Article 4a(4) of Directive 90/388/EEC as amended by
                                                                           Directive 96/19/EC (1), alternatively by failing to communi-
Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission                       cate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium
of the European Communities against the French Republic                    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and
                                                                           under the Treaty establishing the European Community;
                         (Case C-331/99)
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                         (1999/C 314/09)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September            Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities;                    according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result
represented by Hans Støvlbaek, of its Legal Service, and Olivier       to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the         addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in        laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner           in the present case expired on 11 January 1997 without the
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                     Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary
                                                                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            the Commission’s application.
— Declare that, by adopting and keeping in force of
     Article 1(f) of Decree No 77-469 of 28 April 1977, the            (1) OJ L 74 of 22.3.1996, p. 13.
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768/EEC (1);
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Action brought on 10 September 1999 by the Com-
The list of items of information laid down in Article 6(1) of          mission of the European Communities against the
Directive 76/768/EEC is exhaustive, and therefore the Directive                              Kingdom of Belgium
does not permit national rules requiring information to be
given on the quality and quantity of the substances mentioned                                   (Case C-338/99)
on the packaging, in advertising or in the name of the cosmetic
products covered by the Directive.                                                              (1999/C 314/11)
(1) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    products (OJ L 262 of 27 September 1976, p. 169), as amended,      10 September 1999 by the Commission of the European
    with regard to Article 6, by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of       Communities, represented by Léna Ström, Legal Adviser, and
    21 December 1988 (OJ L 382 of 31 December 1988, p. 46).
                                                                       Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                       Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.