CELEX: C2004/047/26
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-506/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

21.2.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 47/15
2.     If the answer to the second alternative in question 1.                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and
       above is in the affirmative:                                                    9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
                                                                                       amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)
       Does the proviso ‘subject to the same proviso’ contained
       in the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive
       92/12/EEC refer, also on taxation of the supply of services         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       relating to products subject to excise duty as defined by
       Article 3(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC, only to the condition
       laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that
       directive, namely ‘provided, however, that those taxes do
       not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade               Pleas in law and main arguments
       between Member States’, or in such a case must ‘specific
       purposes’ for the tax, as laid down in Article 3(2) of the
       directive, also exist?                                              According to the most recent records (December 2002), 1458
                                                                           unlawful and uncontrolled waste tips are operating which
                                                                           receive waste from 47 % of the country’s population.
(1) OJ L 76, p. 1.
                                                                           The Greek authorities informed the Commission that the
                                                                           programme to reduce unlawful and uncontrolled waste dis-
                                                                           posal sites and their replacement with lawful landfill sites
                                                                           meeting public health requirements will only be completed at
                                                                           the end of 2007.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hel-                       The Commission considers that, inasmuch as it is allowing the
                           lenic Republic                                  unlawful and uncontrolled sites to operate on its territory, the
                                                                           Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                           Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as
                          (Case C-502/03)                                  amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.
                           (2004/C 47/25)                                  (1) OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Nov-
ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November
                                                                           2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the
—      declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary:                 Commission of the European Communities
       —     to ensure that waste is disposed of without
             endangering human health and without harming                                            (Case C-506/03)
             the environment,
                                                                                                      (2004/C 47/26)
       —     to prohibit the abandonment, dispοsal and uncon-
             trolled treatment of waste, to ensure that any holder
             of waste has it handled by a private or public waste
             collector or by an undertaking which carries out
             disposal, or disposes of it himself, in accordance            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
             with the measures taken under Article 4,                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003)
       —     to ensure that the establishments or undertakings             by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Wolf-
             which carry out disposal operations operate under a           Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Finance,
             permit from the competent authority or under a                and Christoph von Donat, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
             permit which meets the legal requirements, has                service at the Federal Ministry for Finance, Berlin (Germany).
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/16                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.2.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the United
                                                                               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1.    annul the decision of the Commission to set payment of
      the balance of the Community subsidy for carrying out
      the NELS Eurofix study (EU/D/99/170), granted under
      Commission Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July                                         (Case C-508/03)
      1999, at EUR 80 450,71 in so far as it declares the
      expenditure connected with the IPR contract between
      NODECA NELS CAO and GAUSS Research Foundation
      (NODECA/2000/040) not eligible for subsidy;                                                 (2004/C 47/27)
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.
                                                                         An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, acting as agents, with an address for
1. As the first ground for its action, the applicant alleges             service in Luxembourg.
substantive breach of secondary Community law and general
principles of law. The decision not to recognise the acquisition
of Eurofix as expenditure qualifying for subsidy and to fix the
amount of the balance of the aid at a correspondingly lower              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
figure is not only in breach of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules
for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of              1)   declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
trans-European networks (1) in conjunction with Commission                    4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July 1999 on the grant of                  on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
a Community subsidy of up to EUR 0,7 million for study                        private projects on the environment (1) in relation to the
No EU/D/99/170. By its decision the Commission has also                       proposed urban development project at White City as a
clearly erred in its assessment and at the same time has                      project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
thwarted the applicant’s legitimate expectation that Com-                     Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
mission legal measures will continue to apply, has infringed                  Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the principle of legal certainty and has not acted in accordance              that Directive;
with the principle of proper administration.
                                                                         2)   declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
2. As the second ground for its action, the applicant points                  4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
to formal breaches of Community law, since no clear basis for                 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
the contested decision can be seen, even on an overview of the                private projects on the environment in relation to the
events, which is capable of justifying the decision. If, by its               proposed urban development project at Crystal Palace as
decision, the Commission intended a change to the eligible                    a project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
expenses underlying the approval, the contested decision                      Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
would moreover be formally unlawful, because it should not                    Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
have been taken by way of delegation. The applicant raises this               that Directive;
as the third ground for its action.
                                                                         3)   declare that by failing to ensure the correct application of
                                                                              Articles 2(1), 4(2), 5(2) and 8 of Council Directive 85/
3. The fourth ground for the action concerns the breach of                    337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
the principle of cooperation in good faith between the                        of certain public and private projects on the environment
Commission and Member States in accordance with Article 10                    as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) when development
EC.                                                                           consent is granted for projects in a multi-stage consent
                                                                              procedure, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                              Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive;
(1) OJ 1995 L 228 p. 1.
                                                                         4)   order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                              Ireland to pay the costs.