CELEX: C2003/019/32
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-423/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

C 19/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25.1.2003
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, notwithstanding that the Appellant’s case is not based
                                                                         on an infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
                                                                         the Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           in law in any event (and failed to give adequate reasoning)
      12 September 2002 in case T-89/00;                                 when concluding in paragraph 57 of the judgment that the
                                                                         difference in legal basis for the application of anti-dumping
                                                                         duties against LAECs from the U.S.A. and Thailand on the one
2.    make an order that the costs of and occasioned by these            hand, and Japan on the other, was sufficient reason to
      proceedings, and those before the Court of First Instance,         render the principle of equal treatment inapplicable in the
      be borne by the Council;                                           circumstances of the present case.
3.    annul the last indent of Article 3 of Council Regulation
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 163, 10.06.2000, p. 32.
      (EC) No. 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating the
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 22, 27.01.2000, p. 1.
      anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain             (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
      large aluminium electrolytic capacitors (‘LAECs’) originat-             protection against dumped imports from countries not members
      ing in Japan, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) in so                of the European Community (OJ L 56, 06.03.1996, p. 1).
      far as it does not state that the retroactive effect of this
      Regulation shall apply from 4 December 1997 onwards;
      or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of
      First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly
substituted its own understanding for what the Appellant had
claimed by stating in paragraph 48 of the judgment that the                                        (Case C-423/02)
Appellant had ‘essentially alleged an error in law with respect
to the application of the principle of equal treatment in the
Contested Regulation’. Rather, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                                    (2003/C 19/32)
should have held that the Appellant had essentially alleged an
error in law with respect to the application of the principle of
non discrimination, as laid down in Article 9(5) of the Basic
Anti-Dumping Regulation (‘BR’) ( 3), to the facts of the present
case. Had the Court of First Instance properly considered the
application of the principle of non discrimination laid down             An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
in Article 9(5) BR, rather than concentrating on the principle of        Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
equal treatment, it should have reached a different conclusion.          the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in law by concluding in paragraph 58 of the judgment
in relation to Article 9(5) BR that:
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
(i)   Article 9(5) BR relates only to the initial imposition of          1)     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      anti-dumping duties;                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
                                                                                Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the
                                                                                landfill of waste (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
(ii)  Article 9(5) BR does not necessarily apply to the mainten-                such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
      ance in force of anti-dumping duties, pursuant to                         of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Article 11(2) BR; and                                                     fully its obligations under Article 18 of that Directive;
(iii) Article 9(5) BR may be applied at the discretion of the            2)     order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Council and as such is a non-mandatory rule of law.                       Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 19/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities          Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
necessary for incorporating Directive 1999/31/EC into dom-               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
estic law so that such process is complete within the time limit         period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
laid down, irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and            expired on 1 January 1990 without the United Kingdom of
to inform the Commission thereof.                                        Great Britain and Northern Ireland having enacted the pro-
                                                                         visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                         the conclusions of the Commission.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply fully with the Directive,
and since the Commission is in possession of no other
information enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom              (1 ) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 23.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ L 42, 12.02.1987, p. 43.
has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume
that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such provisions
and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.
( 1) OJ L 182, 16.07.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Adminis-
                                                                         trative (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) by judgment of
                                                                         that Court of 21 November 2002 in the appeal brought
                                                                         by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye, against the Minister
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the Com-                                   for Public Service and Administrative Reform
mission of the European Communities against the United
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                                  (Case C-425/02)
                         (Case C-424/02)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 19/34)
                          (2003/C 19/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                European Communities by order of the Cour Administrative
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of              (Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) (Administrative Court, Grand
the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by the                      Duchy of Luxembourg) of 21 November 2002, received at the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   Court Registry on 25 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling
X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an                in the appeal brought by Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye,
address for service in Luxembourg.                                       against the Minister for Public Service and Administrative
                                                                         Reform on the following question:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Having regard to the provisions of Directives 77/187/EEC (1),
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             98/50/EC (2) and 2001/23/EC (3) identified herein, in the event
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              of the transfer of an undertaking from a non-profit-making
      Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC requiring             association, which is a legal person under private law, to the
      Member States to take the measures necessary to give               State as transferee, is it permissible for the transferor’s rights
      priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration (1),      and obligations to be taken over only in so far as they are
      as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC on waste oils ( 2) or,          compatible with the State’s own rules of public law, in
      in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the          particular in the area of remuneration, where the detailed
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                provisions and amounts of compensation are laid down by
      Northern Ireland has failed to fully fulfil its obligations        grand ducal regulation, bearing in mind that the status of
      under that Directive;                                              public-sector employee confers legal benefits in the areas of,
                                                                         inter alia, career development and job stability on the staff
2)    order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern             concerned, and that, in the event of disagreement as regards
      Ireland to pay the costs.                                          ‘substantial changes’ to the employment relationship within