CELEX: C2000/247/25
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-240/00: Action brought on 15 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

26.8.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/19
Action brought on 15 June 2000 by the Commission                         Appeal brought on 15 June 2000 by Kish Glass Company
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      Limited against the judgment delivered on 30 March 2000
                             Finland                                     by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in case T-65/96 between Kish
                                                                         Glass Company Ltd and the Commission of the European
                        (Case C-240/00)                                  Communities, supported by Pilkington United Kingdom
                                                                                                         Ltd
                        (2000/C 247/25)
                                                                                                 (Case C-241/00 P)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before                                      (2000/C 247/26)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Esa Paasivirta and Richard Wainwright, of its             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 March 2000
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner             European Communities in case T-65/96 between Kish Glass
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       Company Ltd and the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, supported by Pilkington United Kingdom Ltd, was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             15 June 2000 by Kish Glass Company Ltd, represented by
                                                                         Mr Maurice Byrne, solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland, which has not                Mathias Hardt, B.P. 39.
      adequately or definitively classified special protection
      areas as required by Article 4(1) and (2) of Council
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                The Appellant claims that the Court should:
      vation of wild birds (1), has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;
                                                                         —      quash the decision of the Court of First Instance and
                                                                                annul the Decision of the Commission dated 21 February
2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.                                           1996 in Case IV/34.193 — Kish Glass;
                                                                         —      order the Commission to pay Kish’s costs in connection
                                                                                with this appeal, and in connection with Kish’s appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 cation to the Court of First Instance.
Article 4(1) of the Birds Directive requires Member States to            Pleas in law and main arguments
classify as special protection areas for conservation of the
species mentioned in Annex I the most suitable territories in
number and size for the conservation of those species. Under             This appeal, which is based on three grounds of law, illustrates
Article 4(2) Member States must take similar measures for                that the Court of First Instance has infringed the principles of
regularly occurring migratory species not listed in Annex I,             Community law in three important respects. The grounds of
bearing in mind their need for protection. Under Article 4(3)            appeal are as follows:
Member States must send the Commission all relevant infor-
mation concerning the sites classified, so that the Commission
may take measures to form a coherent network.                            First ground: incorrect interpretation of the requirements of
                                                                         Article 11(3) of Regulation 17 of 1962 (1).
Since there are no derogations or transitional provisions
concerning the Birds Directive in the Act of Accession of                The Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the require-
Finland, the obligations concerning the directive in question            ments of Article 11 of Regulation 17 of 1962, in holding that
should have been fulfilled by 1 January 1995.                            the Commission may obtain evidence by means of oral
                                                                         requests followed by requests in the proper form. The Court
                                                                         has addressed this issue in a contradictory manner.
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.
                                                                         Second ground: misapplication of the case law of the Court of
                                                                         Justice, in particular BAT & Reynolds v. Commission, and the
                                                                         consequent failure to vindicate the rights of the applicant as a
                                                                         complainant, while holding that nine days was sufficient for
                                                                         Kish to provide comments.