You are on page 1of 1


2009 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 312/15

88 EC, since the Republic of Poland was not yet a member of Companies Code, brought by an administrator in bankruptcy
the European Union at that time, and that the Commission was proceedings seeking an order that the European Community
indeed informed of the existence of that aid and took the view, should make good the bankrupt company’s liabilities, on the
following the examination of the Polish restructuring ground that the Community had the de facto power to manage
programme and the undertakings’ plans submitted in that a commercial company and was guilty of serious misconduct in
context, that they satisfied the requirements of Article 8(4) of the management of that company which contributed to its
Protocol No 2 to the Association Agreement and the conditions bankruptcy, constitutes an action in non-contractual liability
laid down in Protocol No 8 to the Act of Accession. for the purposes of that provision of the Treaty?

By their third and last ground of appeal, the appellants rely on

an infringement of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (3) and Regu­
lation (EC) No 794/2004. (4) Under those regulations, the fact
that the interest rate applicable to the recovery of contested aid
is fixed in close cooperation with the Member State concerned
does not suffice for that rate to be regarded as an ‘appropriate’ Action brought on 23 September 2009 — Commission of
rate within the meaning of Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) the European Communities v Czech Republic
No 659/1999. The ‘appropriate’ nature of the interest rate
applicable to the recovery of State aid is a substantive (Case C-378/09)
concept independent of the procedure which the Commission
must follow in the exceptional cases in which it fixes the rate in
cooperation with the Member State concerned. (2009/C 312/24)

Language of the case: Czech

(1 )OJ 2003 L 236, p. 948.
(2) Europe Agreement of 16 December 1991 establishing an association Parties
between the European Communities and their Member States, of the
one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part (OJ 1993 Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre­
L 348, p. 2). sented by: M. Šimerdová and J.-B, Laignelot, acting as Agents)
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (now Article 88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1). Defendant: Czech Republic
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 imple­
menting Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (OJ 2004 L 140,
p. 1).
Form of order sought
— declare that, by failing to implement correctly in its national
legislation the provisions of the first, second and third
paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive of 27
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
commerce de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 23 and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC), (1) as
September 2009 — Françoise Hanssens-Ensch amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) and Directive
(administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Agenor SA) v European Community Council, (3) the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obli­
gations under the first, second and third paragraphs of
(Case C-377/09) Article 10a of that directive;

(2009/C 312/23) — order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments
Referring court
The period of implementing the directive into the domestic
Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles legal order expired on 25 June 2005.

Parties to the main proceedings

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
Applicant: Françoise Hanssens-Ensch (administrator in the bank­ (2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
ruptcy proceedings relating to Agenor SA) 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment; OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
(3) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Defendant: European Community Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in
respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes
relating to the environment and amending with regard to public
participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC
Question referred and 96/61/EC; OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.
Is the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to be interpreted as
meaning that a liability action under Article 530 of the Belgian