CELEX: C2000/355/10
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Opinion 2/00: Request by the Commission of the European Communities for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty

C 355/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.12.2000
Request by the Commission of the European Communi-                      of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the
ties for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 September
                             Treaty                                     2000 by DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH, represented
                                                                        by Ulrich Theune and Martin Luther, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                          (Opinion 2/00)
                                                                        Lucy Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
                         (2000/C 355/10)
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
By an application made by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Allan Rosas, Principal Legal                1.    set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
Adviser, Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Margarida                        Instance of 29 June 2000 in Case T-234/95 (1);
Afonso, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, received at the
Court Registry on 27 October 2000, the Court of Justice of
the European Communities has been asked to deliver an                   2.    annul Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty.                          96/236/ECSC of 31 October 1995 (2);
The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court               3.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
of Justice to answer the following two questions in the
affirmative:
1.    Do Articles 133 and 177(4) together with the relevant             Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions of Article 300 of the EC Treaty constitute the
      appropriate legal basis of the act of the European                —     Infringement of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty: With
      Community concluding the Cartagena Protocol on Bios-                    regard to the question whether economic unity exists
      afety?                                                                  between the City of Hamburg and the Hamburgische
                                                                              Landesbank Girozentrale (HLB), the Court of First
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, are the                     Instance wrongly attributed a broad power of assessment
      competences which the Member States retain in the field                 to the Commission. It is in reality a question of Com-
      of protection of the environment, which may justify their               munity law, falling entirely within the sphere of judicial
      participation in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,                   examination. The Court of First Instance was therefore
      residual in relation to the preponderant competence of                  not entitled to take the HLB as the reference investor in
      the Community to enter into international commitments                   the context of the comparison of investors. In assessing
      as regards the matters dealt with in that Protocol?                     the position with reference to the law on State Aids, the
                                                                              Court should have looked not at individual engagements
                                                                              of the City of Hamburg and HLB in isolation but at the
                                                                              respective engagement of the City and HLB as a whole.
                                                                              The disputed financial measures would then not have
                                                                              been capable of being classified as aid. Rather, they
                                                                              corresponded to market behaviour.
Appeal brought on 1 September 2000 by DSG Dradenauer                    —     Infringement of Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty: The Court
Stahlgesellschaft mbH against the judgment delivered on                       of First Instance misjudges the limited powers of action
29 June 2000 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-                            of the Commission under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty
sition, of the Court of First Instance of the European                        and attributes to it a power, unknown under that Treaty,
Communities in Case T-234/95 between DSG Dradenauer                           to require the Member States immediately to demand
Stahlgesellschaft mbH, supported by the Federal Republic                      repayment of aid prohibited under Article 4(c) of the
of Germany and the Commission of the European Com-                            Treaty. On a proper interpretation of Article 88 of the
munities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great                            ECSC Treaty in conjunction with Article 6(4) of the fifth
                 Britain and Northern Ireland                                 Steel Aid Code, the Court of First Instance should
                                                                              have recognised that, under this Treaty, the form and
                        (Case C-323/00 P)                                     procedures for the abolition of unlawful aid are left to the
                                                                              Member States.
                         (2000/C 355/11)
                                                                        —     Infringement of general legal principles.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-234/95             (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
between DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH, supported                 (2) OJ 1996 L 78, p. 31.
by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of
the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom