CELEX: C2004/047/27
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-508/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

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.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 47/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Even if an environmental impact assessment is carried out at
                                                                           the outline planning stage, it may be inadequate because it is
                                                                           based on the information provided in the outline planning
                                                                           application which may be insufficient to evaluate the effects of
                                                                           the development as a whole on the environment. Thus, the
The White City Development                                                 impact assessment will be carried out on an incomplete basis.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
The Commission submits that the competent authority could                  (2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
not reasonably have reached the conclusion that an impact
assessment was unnecessary when it based such a conclusion
principally or solely on the fact that the land in question had
been previously developed. That criterion for excluding the
need of an impact assessment is an innovation of Government
Circular 15/68. Directive 85/337/EEC contains no such test
and it is submitted that, by relying on a ground for excluding an
impact assessment which is not found in the aforementioned
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof
Directive, the United Kingdom has failed to apply Articles 2(1)
                                                                           Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 4 December
and 4(2) of that Directive correctly in the case of the proposed
                                                                           2003 in the case of J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van
urban development project at White City.
                                                                           de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buiten-
                                                                                                     land te Heerlen
                                                                                                    (Case C-512/03)
The Crystal Palace Development
                                                                                                      (2004/C 47/28)
The Commission maintains that, by not requiring an impact
assessment for the Crystal Palace development, the United
Kingdom has exceeded its margin of discretion under Directive              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
85/377/EEC. The Commission submits that the margin of                      European Communities by order of the Gerechthof Herzogen-
discretion afforded a Member State under Article 4(2) of the               busch of 4 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
Directive is not unlimited. The limits of that discretion are              8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
circumscribed by Article 2(1) of the Directive — i.e. an impact            J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
assessment is required where a project, by virtue of its size,             Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen on the
nature or location, is likely to have significant environmental            following questions:
effects. The Commission submits that, according to those
criteria, the project is likely to have such effects.                      1.     Is a foreign taxpayer, who is a resident of a Member State
                                                                                  and does not receive any income from employment in
                                                                                  the Netherlands, but only from savings and investments,
                                                                                  and who is therefore not obliged to pay, and does not
                                                                                  pay, any social security contributions to the Netherlands
Multi-stage procedure governing applications for planning                         national insurance schemes, entitled under EC law to
permission                                                                        Netherlands tax credits for national insurance schemes
                                                                                  (general old-age insurance, general insurance for depend-
                                                                                  ants and general insurance against special medical
                                                                                  expenses) in the calculation of his taxable income from
The Commission does not question the legality of dividing the                     savings and investments, in the case where resident
planning process into two stages per se, but submits that the                     taxpayers are entitled to those tax credits in the calculation
manner in which planning authorisation is actually divided                        of their taxable income from savings and investments
into two stages in the United Kingdom leads to results which                      because they are regarded as insured and as obliged to
are incompatible with Directive 85/337/EEC.                                       pay social security contributions to the Netherlands
                                                                                  national insurance schemes, even if they do not receive
                                                                                  any income in the Netherlands from employment, but
A large urban development project may escape assessment at                        only from savings and investments, and for that reason
the outline planning stage and no impact assessment is                            do not pay any social security contributions in the
possible (under English law) at the second, reserved matters                      Netherlands either?
stage. Consequently, a large urban development project which
is likely to have significant effects on the environment is not            2.     In answering the first question, is it relevant that the
considered as a whole but in separate parts. The practical result                 foreign taxpayer in question earns in excess of or less
is that the likely effects on the environment are not considered                  than 90 % of his family income in the Netherlands? In
in the light of the project as a whole.                                           particular: