CELEX: C2001/028/39
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-430/00 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2000 by Anton Dürbeck GmbH against the judgment delivered on 19 December 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between Anton Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic

C 28/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.1.2001
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Appeal brought on 21 November 2000 by Anton Dürbeck
                                                                           GmbH against the judgment delivered on 19 December
—     declare that, by failing to ensure that bathing waters in            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      the United Kingdom comply with the limit values set in               of the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between
      accordance with Article 3 of Directive 76/160/EC (1), the            Anton Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the
      United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under            European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      that Directive;                                                                       Spain and the French Republic
                                                                                                    (Case C-430/00 P)
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                                                      (2001/C 28/39)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between Anton
Article 4 of the Directive 76/160/CEE requires Member States               Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the European Com-
to have taken all necessary measures, within 10 years following            munities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the French
notification of the Directive, to ensure that the quality of               Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
bathing water conforms to the limit values set out in the                  European Communities on 21 November 2000 by Anton
Annex.                                                                     Dürbeck GmbH, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                           Berrenrather Straße 313, D-50937 Köln.
The Commission notes that, despite efforts to improve com-                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
pliance, the United Kingdom is continuing to fail to meet the
                                                                           1.    Set aside the contested judgment;
requirements of the directive. The Commission must conclude,
therefore, that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its                2.    Annul the contested decision of the Commission of
obligations in terms of the Directive.                                           10 July 1997 relating to the case of hardship;
                                                                           3.    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
    the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1).                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance erred in not undertaking
                                                                                 a critical appraisal of the applicant’s submissions on
                                                                                 infringement of the principle of equivalence. The defend-
                                                                                 ant had first referred to the ‘interest in the equal treatment
                                                                                 of all traders’ in its defence. The applicant was entitled to
                                                                                 state its position on this not solely for the purpose of
                                                                                 refuting the defendant’s plea.
                                                                           —     Owing to an incorrect appreciation of the contract
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                                 between the applicant and Consultban, the Court of First
di Genova by order of that court of 11 November 2000
                                                                                 Instance concluded that the Commission had correctly
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                                                                                 established the amount of the compensation to which the
                                                                                 applicant was entitled.
                           (Case C-429/00)
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance erred in approving the
                                                                                 Commission’s refusal to take the licences granted in order
                            (2001/C 28/38)                                       to compensate losses in cases of hardship into account
                                                                                 for the purpose of determining future reference quantities.
                                                                                 The Commission was not entitled to adopt the approach
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           of providing compensation by allocating licences in cases
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace                             of hardship if that approach meant that it could not
(District Court), Genoa, of 20 November 2000, received at the                    take those licences into account for the purpose of
Court Registry on 11 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                     determining reference quantities for future years. Once it
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on                    adopted that approach, however, the effect of the binding
questions which are in substance identical to those referred in                  rule in Article 19 of Regulation No 404/93 was such that
Case C-388/00 (1).                                                               the Commission could not then refuse to take those
                                                                                 licences into account for the purpose of determining
                                                                                 reference quantities for future years if, owing to further
(1) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                          developments in the organisation of the market in
                                                                                 bananas, the applicant received excessive compensation
                                                                                 for its loss.