CELEX: C1996/095/10
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 January 1996 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-22/96)

30 . 3 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 95/7
    — infringement of the principle of equal treatment and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         non-discrimination : by generally imposing the
         opening up of the alternative networks to operators          — the aim and the content of the contested act are part of
         who exploit them in very different national systems,             Title XII of the EC Treaty and Article 129d ( inasmuch as
         benefitting some and adversely affecting others as
                                                                          it is a procedural article ) is the only appropriate legal
         a result of being incompatible with the duty of
                                                                          basis . On the one hand, despite the procedural and
         non-discrimination and of equal treatment required,
                                                                          terminological changes made to the Commission's
         not only of the Member States, but also of the                   proposal, there are numerous 'policy' elements which
         Community institutions . This defect of the Directive            justify recourse to Article 129d ( 1 ). On the other, there
         is even more serious inasmuch as since the legal
                                                                          are also a number of 'interoperability' aspects ( second
         system governing the activity of cable television                indent of Article 129c ( 1 ) as basic Article ) which justify
         operators in Portugal is liberal as regards the issuing          of themselves recourse to Article 129d ( 3 ). Finally, since
         of licences, it magnifies the impact of liberalization,
                                                                          projects of common interest have been clearly identified,
         when in fact it would be desirable, having regard
                                                                          the Community contribution falls within the scope of
         to the comparative underdevelopment of the                       the third indent of Article 129c ( 1 ) and the correct legal
         Portuguese national network, that the effect of the              basis is in this case also Article 1 29d ( 3 ) . Given that there
         measure should be felt gradually and over time .
                                                                          are specific legal bases in the Treaty, Article 235 of the
                                                                          EC Treaty is not at all relevant,
— Misuse of powers : Directive 95/5 1/EC does not seem to
     be intended to promote fairness in greater competition
    with regard to the leasing of networks and,                       — in the alternative, lack of competence, misuse of powers
    consequently, to the liberalized telecommunications                   as regards Article 2 ( 2 ) of the contested Decision :
     services . Rather, it advances in a concealed manner the             that provision gives the contested Decision an
     total liberalization of the infrastructures and places in a          unascertainable scope, constitutes an arrogation of
     privileged position those cable television operators who             competence by the Council and, above all, is tantamount
     are already established in some of the Member States                 to disregarding ab initio the rights of Parliament to
     where they are not subject to any competition .                      intervene in the legislative process .
H OJ No L 256 , 26 . 10 . 19 95 , p . 49 .                            0 ) Decision 95/468/EC, published in OJ No L 269 , 11 . 11 . 1995 ,
                                                                          p. 23 .
  Action brought on 25 January 1996 by the European
  Parliament against the Council of the European Union
                         ( Case C-22/96 )                             Action brought on 26 January 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the French Republic
                           ( 96/C 95/ 10 )
                                                                                                ( Case C-23/96 )
                                                                                                  ( 96/C 95/ 11 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 January 1996 by the European                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Jose Luis                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Rufas Quintana, action as Agents, with an address for                 26 January 1996 by the Commission of the European
service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the               Communities, represented by Michel Nolin and Jean­
Parliament, Batiment Tour, Kirchberg.                                 Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                      Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the                The applicant claims that the Court should :
    Decision of the Council of 6 November 1995 on a
     Community contribution for telematic interchange of
     data between administrations in the Community                    — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     ( IDA )( 1 ),                                                        within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
                                                                          or administrative provisions necessary to comply
                                                                          with Commission Directive 91 /507/EEC ( J ) modifying
— annul, in any event, also pursuant to Article 173 of the                the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC ( 2 ) on the
     EC Treaty, Article 2 ( 2 ) of that Decision,                         approximation of the laws of Member States relating
                                                                          to analytical , pharmacotoxicological and clinical
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                  standards and protocols in respect of the testing of