CELEX: C2003/070/27
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-46/03: Action brought on 7 February 2003 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission

22.3.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/17
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                   b.    a subsequent decision taken on a date unknown to
                                                                                     the United Kingdom in December 2002 or January
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                         2003 to decommit those sums;
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2000/77/EC of the European Parliament and of                   c.    any steps taken pursuant to such decisions including
      the Council of 14 December 2000 fixing the principles                          the act of decommitting those sums;
      governing the organisation of official inspections in the
      field of animal nutrition or, in any event, by failing to
      inform the Commission thereof the Italian Republic has                   d.    a Commission decision contained in the letter dated
                                                                                     22 November 2002 to issue a recovery order for the
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that
      directive and under the EC Treaty.                                             sum of 9 272 767 Euros of ERDF money already
                                                                                     paid to the United Kingdom in respect of expendi-
                                                                                     ture incurred on MST 2; and
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
                                                                               e.    any steps taken pursuant to such decision.
                                                                         (2) Pursuant to Article 231 EC make a declaration that each
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                of the said measures is void.
                                                                         (3) Pursuant to Article 241 EC make a declaration that in the
Article 249 EC, under which a directive is binding on a                        event that the Commission’s interpretation of
Member State, as to the result to be achieved, entails that the                Article 52(5) of Regulation 1260/99 (1) and/or Article 10
Member States must respect the period for implementation                       of Annex to the Commission Decision C(92)1358/8 is
prescribed by the directive. That period ended on 29 December                  correct, the said measures are inapplicable against the
2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted the necess-                   United Kingdom.
ary provisions to comply with the directive which is the
subject of the Commission’s claims.
                                                                         (4) Make an order that the Commission pay the United
                                                                               Kingdom the costs of and occasioned by this Application
                                                                               and these proceedings.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 7 February 2003 by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against
                          the Commission
                                                                         1)   T he De c om m it m e n t of 1 1 63 2 6 0 0 E u r os
                           (Case C-46/03)                                     of E R DF A ssi s ta nce
                           (2003/C 70/27)                                The Applicant submits that, in concluding that the United
                                                                         Kingdom had not complied with Article 52(5) of Regulation
                                                                         1260/1999, and in its conclusions as to the effect of any such
                                                                         non-compliance, the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
An action against the Commission was brought before the                  interpretation and/or made a manifest error in assessment.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 February
2003 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, represented by P. Ormond, acting as agent, assisted by          The Applicant maintains that the sanction imposed by
D. Lloyd Jones QC and S. Lee, Barristers, with an address for            Article 52(5) of the Regulation applies only where an appli-
                                                                         cation for final payment has not been received by 31 March
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         2001 and that the Regulation requires no more than that an
                                                                         application for final payment has been received by the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              stipulated date. The Regulation does not require the submission
                                                                         of an application in any particular form.
(1) Pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC make an order
      annulling the following measures:                                  In particular, the Regulation does not require that an appli-
                                                                         cation for final payment must be made in the standard form
      a.    a Commission decision contained in a letter dated            ERDF Certification of Expenditure which is usually employed
            22 November 2002 to decommit the sum of                      for this purpose. The Commission therefore erred in law in
            11 632 600 Euros in respect of expenditure incurred          concluding that failure to make an application for final
            on the Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 operational             payment in that form led to the imposition of the sanction
            programme, or MST 2;                                         imposed by Article 52(5).
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                      22.3.2003
The Applicant submits that the documents communicated to                Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission
the Commission constituted an application for final payment             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
in accordance with Article 52(5) and that in concluding to the                                        Republic
contrary the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest
error of assessment.
                                                                                                   (Case C-48/03)
It is also submitted that the Commission’s interpretation of the                                   (2003/C 70/28)
Regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty and of
proportionality.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The Applicant submits that if the Commission’s interpretation           10 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
of Article 52(5) of the Regulation and/or the Annex to its              Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, acting
Decision C(92) 1358/8 is correct, the absolute nature of those          as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
provisions is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, those provisions contravene the principle of
legal certainty in that they are not sufficiently clearly and           The applicant claims that the Court should:
precisely drafted and that, in these circumstances, it is submit-
ted that, by virtue of Article 241 EC, the provisions of the            —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Regulation and the Decision are inapplicable against the United               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Kingdom.                                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 2000/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                              the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
The Applicant maintains that the decision of the Commission                   79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
contained in its letter of 22 November 2002 does not disclose                 and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
the principle issues of law and of fact upon which it is based                materials, and, in any event, by failing to inform the
and should therefore be annulled on grounds of lack of                        Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed
reasoning.                                                                    to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned direc-
                                                                              tive;
                                                                        —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
2)    T h e D eci si o n to s eek r ecov ery                  of
      9 2 7 2 76 7 E uro s of E RD F As si st an ce
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The Applicant submits that the decision letter of 22 November
2002 by which the Commission notified the United Kingdom                The period for transposition expired on 2 May 2001.
that it was obliged to issue a recovery order for the sum of
9 272 767 Euros should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.
—      that the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
       interpretation and/or made a manifest error of assess-
       ment;
—      that the decision contravened the principles of good
       administration, Community solidarity, regional partner-          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
       ship and the principle of cooperation between Com-               de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court
       munity institutions and Member States (Article 10 EC);           of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against
                                                                        Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et
                                                                                        Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
—      lack of adequate reasoning.
                                                                                                   (Case C-49/03)
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
                                                                                                   (2003/C 70/29)
     down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161,
     26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de