CELEX: C2003/251/15
Language: en
Date: 2003-10-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-370/03: Action brought on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

18.10.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of
that court dated 28 July 2003, in the case of Fulcrum
Electronics Ltd (in Liquidation) against Commissioners                   The abovementioned DEI power station unquestionably falls
                      of Customs and Excise                              within the category of industrial plants listed in Annex I to
                                                                         Directive 84/360 and is an ‘existing plant’ within the meaning
                          (Case C-355/03)                                of Article 2(3) of that directive. Therefore, the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic is obliged, under Article 13 of the directive, to imple-
                          (2003/C 251/13)                                ment a policy and strategy including appropriate measures for
                                                                         the adaptation of that plant to the best available technology. In
                                                                         accordance with Article 16 of the directive, that obligation has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   existed since 30 June 1987, but the Hellenic Republic has not
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    yet determined appropriate policies and strategies.
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 28 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 August
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fulcrum                    (1) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.
Electronics Ltd (in Liquidation) against Commissioners of
Customs and Excise on the questions which are identical to
those in Case C-354/03 (1).
(1) See page 6 of this Official Journal.                                 Action brought on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
                                                                                                 (Case C-370/03)
                                                                                                 (2003/C 251/15)
Action brought on 22 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                          (Case C-364/03)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities on 27 August 2003 by the Hellenic
                          (2003/C 251/14)                                Republic, represented by G. Kanellopoulos, a Member of the
                                                                         State Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                         at the Greek Embassy, 27 rue Marie-Adelaïde.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                         The applicant asks the Court to:
Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and
M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision 2003/481/EC in so far as
                                                                               concerns the particular chapter concerning the charging
                                                                               to the budget of the Member State rather than to the
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                               EAGGF Guarantee Section the sum not recoverable by the
                                                                               Greek authorities of DR 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884,90);
—     declare that, by failing to determine policies and strategies
      for the gradual adaptation of the steam-turbine and gas-           —     order that the financial consequences of the non-recovery
      turbine units of the DEI (Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou;                of the above sum should be borne by the Community.
      State Electricity Undertaking) power station at
      Linoperamata, Crete, to the best available technology,
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      under Article 13 of Council Directive 84/360/EEC (1) of
      28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from
      industrial plants;
                                                                         —     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
                                                                               since Greece was not invited by the Commission to a
                                                                               discussion in accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                            No 1663/96;
 ---pagebreak--- C 251/8               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         18.10.2003
—     Infringement/misapplication of Article 8(2) of Regulation        Appeal brought on 10 September 2003 by Rafael Pérez
      No 729/70 since there was an error as to the facts in so         Escolar against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by
      far as misassessment of irregularities or negligence is          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      concerned;                                                       (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01
                                                                       between Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the
                                                                                            European Communities
—     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
      since there is an insufficient statement of reasons                                      (Case C-379/03 P)
      (Article 253 EC).
                                                                                                (2003/C 251/17)
                                                                       An appeal against the order delivered on 25 June 2003 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-41/01 between
                                                                       Rafael Pérez Escolar and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by the Commission                   European Communities on 10 September 2003 by Rafael
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                    Pérez Escolar represented by Fernando Moreno Pardo.
                         of Luxembourg
                        (Case C-375/03)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 251/16)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                    —     Accept the application, its copies and annexes, allow the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          present appeal subject to the relevant procedure and set
Communities on 8 September 2003 by the Commission of                         aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 25 June
the European Communities, represented by W. Wils, acting as                  2003, by declaring admissible the action for failure to act
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            brought before the Court of First Instance, and in the
                                                                             event that it considers it appropriate, hear and decide the
                                                                             case itself by declaring that the Commission, by failing to
                                                                             adopt any decision whatsoever on the complaint submit-
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       ted by the appellant's representatives on 23 February
the Court should:                                                            1999 on the State aid granted by the Banco Español de
                                                                             Credito S.A. and Banco Santander S.A., had failed to act;
1.   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 2000/30/EC of the European Parliament and of            —     Alternatively, in the event that the Court does not con-
     the Council of 6 June 2000 on the technical roadside                    sider it appropriate to hear and determine the case itself,
     inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles                 the Court should refer the case back to the Court of First
     circulating in the Community (1) and, in any event, by                  Instance in order for it to hear and determine the sub-
     failing to communicate them to the Commission,                          stance of the case;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;
                                                                       —     In any event, order the Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities to pay all the costs arising from the pro-
2.   order Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                      ceedings both at first instance and on appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       Pleas and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired
on 10 August 2002.
                                                                       The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the
                                                                       applicant did not have locus standi to bring an action for failure
                                                                       to act against the Commission for not adopting any decision
(1) OJ L 203 of 10.08.2000, p. 1.                                      whatever on the complaint submitted. The Court of First
                                                                       Instance held that the criteria for locus standi for the purposes
                                                                       of an action for failure to act under Article 232 EC are the