CELEX: C1995/268/42
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-289/95)

14 . 10 . 95           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/ 19
2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative :                Second limb of the plea :
     Is the termination of residence of such a worker by virtue         The Court of First Instance has further infringed
     of an expulsion order made solely on general preventive            Community law by holding, in points 84 and 85 of the
     grounds with a view to deterring other aliens compatible           judgment, that there is no limit of time for raising a new plea
     with Article 14 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned Decision ?             under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of Procedure.
                                                                        Third limb of the plea :
                                                                        In ordering the Commission to produce the text of the
Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of                   decision as authenticated at the time, the Court of First
the European Communities against the judgment delivered                 Instance infringed Community law, in so far as its order is
on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First              based on a mistaken view of the rules governing the
Instance of the European Communities sitting in extended                procedure and the rules of proof and evidence; the Court of
composition in case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical                   First Instance also made a mistake of reasoning in that it
Industries pic and the Commission of the European                       failed to explain in both the order of 25 October 1994 and
                          Communities                                   the judgment why it had concluded that it should order the
                       ( Case C-286/95 P)                               Commission to produce that text.
                           95/C 268/41
                                                                        Second plea for setting aside the judgment: infringement of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995                Community law and lack of reasoning as concerns the
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the              purpose of authentication and the consequences of a failure
European Communities sitting in extended composition in                 to authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption.
Case T-37/91 between Imperial Chemical Industries pic and
the Commission of the European Communities, was
                                                                        First limb of the plea :
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the                  The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law by
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall and                 holding, in particular in ground 91 of the judgment, that
Berend Jan Drijber, members of its Legal Service, acting as             authentication is a formal requirement which must be
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                observed independently of the existence or not of any
office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner,                       evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of the
Kirchberg.                                                              notified text .
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Second limb of the plea :
1 , set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment of
     29 June 1995 in Case T-37/91 , Imperial Chemical                   The Court of First Instance infringed Community law and
     Industries pic v. Commission of the European                       made a mistake of reasoning in holding in grounds 88 , 90
     Communities ;                                                      and 92 that authentication must take place before the act is
                                                                        notified to the addressee, failing which it is void, and that the
                                                                        authentication carried out in this case was defective .
2 , dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's
     decision based upon the lack of authentication;
                                                                        Third limb of the plea :
3 , remit the case to the Court of First Instance pursuant to
     Article 54 of the Statute ( EC ) of the Court of Justice for a     The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law
     decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 and incidentally neglected its obligation to give reasons for
     against the Commission's decision;                                 its judgment by failing to consider whether the alleged defect
                                                                        was such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
4 , order ICI to pay the costs of this appeal .                         decision .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
First plea for the setting aside of the judgment: infringement
of Community law and lack of reasoning as regards the
admissibility of ICI's new plea for annulment, the
organization of the procedure and the rules of proof and
evidence .                                                              Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
First limb of the plea :                                                                       Case C-289/95 )
The Court of First Instance has infringed Community law by                                       ( 95/C 268/42
holding, at point 82 of the judgment, that the statements by
the Commission to which reference is made, can amount in
themselves to a new fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
its Rules of Procedure .                                                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
30 August 1 995 by the Commission of the European                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                1 , annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission's decision of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            28 June 1995 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                            Article 90 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                            Community and concerning the system of discounts on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                landing fees at Brussels National Airport;
— declare that, by adopting the Ministerial Decree of
    13 March 1992 without first communicating a draft                   2 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
    thereof to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council
    Directive 83/ 189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    procedure for the provision of information in the field of
    technical standards and regulations (*),                            1 . The contested decision states that the system of
                                                                            discounts on landing fees introduced by Article 2 ( 2 ) of
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                             the Royal Decree of 22 December 1989 is a measure
                                                                            incompatible with Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, read
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         in conjunction with Article 86 thereof.
The Commission states that the Ministerial Decree of
3 March 1992 had not been communicated to it in draft                   2 . According to the Commission, the system of discounts
form, which constitutes a manifest failure to fulfil the                    established by the Royal Decree has the effect of
obligations imposed upon Member States by Directive                         applying to the airlines who use Brussels airport
83/ 189/EEC . Furthermore, in the view of the Commission                    dissimilar conditions for equivalent transactions . The
as set out in communication 86/C 245/05 ( OJ No C 245 ,                     Commission claims that the applicant introduced that
1986 , p . 4 ), that infringement of the procedure laid down by             system in order to benefit the Belgian national air
Directive 83/ 189/EEC renders the technical regulations in                  transport company, namely Sabena .
question incapable of producing legal effects and therefore
unenforceable against third parties . The Commission                        The discounts laid down by the Belgian State in the
maintains that the prohibition on the adoption of national                  Royal Decree are administered by the Régie des Voies
measures without prior notification has direct effect and                   Aériennes ( Airways Authority: hereinafter 'the RVA').
confers upon the individual rights which may be relied upon                 Since the RVA has been granted exclusive rights with
before the national courts .                                                respect to the operation of Brussels National Airport,
                                                                            the Commission considers that it holds a dominant
In particular, the Commission claims that the Italian                       position on the market for such services and that the
authorities have infringed the first paragraph of Article 8(1 )             application of the allegedly discriminatory discounts
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC which provides for the                             constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. However,
communication of all draft technical regulations .                          in view of the fact that the RVA can exercise no
                                                                            discretion in that area, its sole role being to implement
(!) OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .                                   the Royal Decree, the Commission claims that the
                                                                            applicant State has acted in disregard of its obligations
                                                                            under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, read in
                                                                            conjunction with Article 86 thereof, in so far as it
                                                                            requires the RVA to administer the discriminatory
                                                                            system of discounts .
Action brought on 5 September 1995 by the Kingdom of
Belgium against the Commission of the European                          3 . The applicant claims that the Commission infringed the
                             Communities
                                                                            rights of the defence in its adoption of the contested
                          ( Case C-291 /95 )                                decision . In the course of the procedure, the applicant
                            ( 95/C 268/43 )                                 had no opportunity to give its views, as would have been
                                                                            proper, and no access to the Commission's file.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  The applicant also claims that the decision was adopted
European Communities on 5 September 1995 by the                             in disregard of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty; that
Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jan Devadder, acting                     it is vitiated by lack of competence; that the analysis on
as Agent, assisted by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels              which it was based is flawed, both in fact and in law,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       thus infringing Article 190 of the EC Treaty; and lastly,
Belgian Embassy, 4 rue des Girondins .                                      that it is vitiated by misuse of powers .