You are on page 1of 2

C 229/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.9.

2005

Action brought on 11 July 2005 by the Commission of the draw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible
European Communities against the Italian Republic with the common market by the decision of the Commission
and to recover from the recipients the aid granted under that
scheme, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission
(Case C-280/05) of such measures, has failed and continues to fail to fulfil its
obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and
Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision.
(2005/C 229/16)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the


Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 July 2005
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in
by V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, acting as Agents, with an
ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry
address for service in Luxembourg.
Services GmbH

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, (Case C-283/05)
the necessary measures to withdraw the aid scheme consid-
ered unlawful and incompatible with the common market
by Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004
on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing (2005/C 229/17)
for urgent measures to assist employment (notified on 1
April 2004 under document number C(2004) 930; OJ 2004
L 352, p. 10) and to recover from the recipients the aid
granted under that scheme, and in any event by failing to (Language of the case: German)
inform the Commission of such measures, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2,
3 and 4 of that Decision and the EC Treaty;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 30
Pleas in law and main arguments June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 July 2005, for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASML Nether-
lands BV and SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH
The decision of the Commission requires Italy to withdraw the on the following questions:
aid scheme referred to in Article 1, to take ‘all necessary
measures to recover from the recipients the aid granted under
the scheme referred to in Article 1 which has been unlawfully 1. Is the phrase ‘… unless the defendant failed to commence
made available to the recipients’ and to cancel ‘all outstanding proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible
payments of aid with effect from the date of this Decision’. It for him to do so’ in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
must, in addition, inform the Commission, within two months No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
of notification of the Decision, of ‘the measures taken to recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
comply with it’. commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as
meaning that the ‘possibility’ of such a challenge is in any
event dependent on the due service on the defendant in
Given that the decision was notified on 1 April 2004 the accordance with the applicable law on service of an office
period for compliance expired on 1 June 2004. copy of an appealable default judgment delivered in a
Member State?

So far as concerns the obligation to recover the aid unlawfully


paid, it must be stated that, on expiry of the period prescribed, 2. If question 1 is answered in the negative:
the Italian Republic had not yet informed the Commission of
the measures taken to comply with that obligation and that the
requests for information by the Commission remained unan- Would the service of an office copy of the order on the
swered. application for a declaration of enforceability in Austria of
the default judgement of the regional court in 's-Hertogen-
bosch of 16 July 2004 … and for an execution order
It appears clear that the Italian Republic, by failing to take, following the foreign order for execution declared enforce-
within the prescribed period, the necessary measures to with- able necessarily already have put the defendant and judg-
17.9.2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 229/9

ment debtor (= the defendant in the original proceedings) latter is required only to repay the wrongly granted aid
on notice not only of the existence of that judgment but within the meaning of Article 4(1) of that Regulation?
also of the availability of a legal remedy under the legal
order of the State in which the judgment was delivered, so
that it would be aware as a result of the possibility of chal- (1) OJ L 312, p. 1.
lenging the judgment which is a prior condition for the
applicability of the exception to the bar to recognition
under Article 34(2) of the Regulation?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the


European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-293/05)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-


gerichtshof Baden-Württemberg by order of that court of (2005/C 229/19)
30 June 2005 in Reinhold Haug v Land Baden-Württem-
berg
(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case C-286/05)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the


Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July 2005
(2005/C 229/18) by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Sara Pardo Quintillan and Donatella Recchia, of its Legal
Service.
(Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to take measures to ensure that, as


from 31 December 1998, urban waste water from the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro- agglomeration of several communes of the Province of
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Varese situated in the basin of the River Olona is subject to
Baden-Württemberg of 30 June 2005, received at the Court more stringent treatment than the secondary treatment or
Registry on 18 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the equivalent treatment provided for in Article 4 of Directive
proceedings between Reinhold Haug and Land Baden-Württem- 91/271/EEC, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
berg on the following question: obligations under Article 5(2) of that directive, referred to in
Article 5(5) thereof;

1. Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regu- 2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
lation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 apply even if in the
context of an irregularity within the meaning of Article 1(2)
of that Regulation only the reimbursement of wrongly
granted aid is sought (Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC, Pleas in law and main arguments
Euratom) No 2988/1995 (1) and, because of a provision of
Community law that later comes into force, the amount of
wrongly granted aid to be reimbursed would be lower than
under the provisions of Community law in force at the time The Commission does not challenge the failure to designate the
that the irregularity was committed? basin which drains the southern Lambro-Olona area as a sensi-
tive area, inasmuch as appropriate infringement proceedings
are pending for that purpose. However, that drainage basin is
If the answer to the first question should be in the affirma- part of an area situated within the Po basin, which has been
tive: officially designated a sensitive area.

2. Does the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regu- Accordingly, pursuant to Article 5(5) of Directive 91/271,
lation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/1995 also apply with regard which refers to Article 5(2) thereof, water from the agglomera-
to the rules governing payment of interest if no administra- tion in the Province of Varese situated in the basin of the River
tive penalties within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that Olona should have been subject to more stringent treatment
Regulation are imposed on the farmer concerned and the than secondary treatment since 31 December 1998.