You are on page 1of 1

C 165/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 15.7.

2006

Parties to the main proceedings Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent, and by J. Flynn
Applicant: Diane Barker QC)

Defendant: London Borough of Bromley


Re:
Intervener: First Secretary of State
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2003 in Case T-224/00 Archer
Re: Daniels Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredients
Ltd v Commission dismissing in part an application for annul-
Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Inter- ment of, or a reduction in the fine imposed by, Commission
pretation of Articles 1(2) and 2(1) of Council Directive Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the
of certain public and private projects on the environment — EEA Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).
No assessment before the grant of consent for a project likely
to have effects on the environment — Obligation to subject the
project to subsequent assessment — Development of the Operative part of the judgment
Crystal Palace site for leisure purposes
The Court:

Operative part of the judgment 1. Dismisses the appeal;

1. Classification of a decision as a ‘development consent’ within the 2. Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Archer Daniels Midland
meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 Ingredients Ltd to pay the costs.
June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment must be carried out pursuant
to national law in a manner consistent with Community law. (1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

2. Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337 are to be interpreted


as requiring an environmental impact assessment to be carried out
if, in the case of grant of consent comprising more than one stage,
it becomes apparent, in the course of the second stage, that the
project is likely to have significant effects on the environment by
virtue inter alia of its nature, size or location.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 May 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
(1) OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.
(Case C-459/03) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — United


Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Part XII —
Protection and preservation of the marine environment —
Dispute-settlement system provided for under that convention
— Arbitration proceedings initiated on the basis of that
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 May 2006 — system by Ireland against the United Kingdom — Dispute
Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland relating to the MOX plant at Sellafield (United Kingdom) —
Ingredients Ltd v Commission of the European Commu- Irish Sea — Articles 292 EC and 193 EA — Undertaking
nities not to submit a dispute relating to the interpretation or
application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other
(Case C-397/03 P) (1) than those provided for by the Treaty — Mixed agreement —
Community competence — Articles 10 EC and 192 EA —
(Appeals — Competition — Cartels — Synthetic lysine Duty of cooperation)
market — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines
— Non-retroactivity — Non bis in idem principle — Equal (2006/C 165/04)
treatment — Turnover which may be taken into account)
Language of the case: English
(2006/C 165/03)

Language of the case: English


Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-


Parties sented by: P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Appellants: Archer Daniels Midland Co., Archer Daniels Midland Intervener in support of the applicant: The United Kingdom of Great
Ingredients Ltd (represented by: C.O. Lenz, Rechtsanwalt, E. Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and C.
Batchelor, L. Martin Alegi and M. Garcia, Solicitors) Gibbs Agents, and by R. Plender QC)