Notice for the OJ
Action brought on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro against Commission of the European Communities
(Case T-303/01)
(Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 November 2001 by Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza), Osera de Ebro (Zaragoza, Spain), represented by Javier Ariño Barcelona, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(annul the decision of the Commission not to take action on complaint No 1999/5330;
(order the European Commission to take the following measures:
1.require the Government of the Kingdom of Spain not to implement the decision to alter the route followed by Subsection II (Ebro river crossing) of the Zaragoza-Lleida section of the Madrid-Barcelona-French border high speed line, known as Solución Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), declared environmentally viable by the Spanish Council of Ministers on 25 February 1999 and approved by way of resolution by the Secretary of State for Infrastructure and Transport of 17 March 1999;
2.further require the Kingdom of Spain to ensure that those works be carried out using the only properly approved route adopted by resolution of the Secretary of State for Town and Country Planning of 24 February 1995 as Alternativa Norte (Northern Option); and
3.any other measure which in consequence of the preceding orders may be deemed appropriate, including a warning from the Commission to the Spanish authorities that enforcement measures could be adopted in the absence of adequate compliance, including infringement proceedings and/or the withdrawal of European funding for the project.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant states that it is one of the municipal authorities affected by the route of the
High Speed Madrid-Zaragoza-French Border railway line, for which the Spanish Government obtained funding from the Community cohesion fund (Project No 95/11/65/007).
1 Initially, the Spanish administrative authorities approved the route for Subsection II of the Zaragoza-Lleida section, which opted, from the two possible choices at the Source of the Ebro, for the "Northern Option", which did not affect the protected area of the Soto de Aguilar, a riverside wilderness of great ecological and wildlife value within the municipality limits of the applicant. Subsequently, despite the report to the contrary drawn up by the competent environmental authorities, the Spanish Government decided to alter the route initially planned, opting for Solución Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B), which not only is the less environmentally friendly but is also the more expensive.
On 1 December 1999, the applicant informed the Commission of those facts, requesting it to order the Spanish Government not to implement the decision relating to the Solución Sur Alternativa B (Southern Solution, Option B) route and to opt for the "Northern Alternative", and to warn it that, if it failed to comply, the Community assistance received was to be returned (Complaint No 1999/5330). As a result of that complaint, the Commission invited the Spanish Government to make its views known and, after examining the reply ( to which the applicant has not had access, despite repeatedly requesting it ( the Commission decided to take no action on the case.
The applicant claims that, contrary to the view taken by the Commission, the Spanish Government's measures amount to an infringement of Community law, namely of:
(Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;
2(Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;
3 and
(legislation on the use of Community funding, in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund.
4The applicant is of the view that, in the face of such flagrant infringement of Community law by the Spanish authorities as pointed out in its complaint, the Commission should have taken steps to defend Community law and that its decision not to take action must accordingly be annulled.
____________1 - OJ 1998 C 153, p. 1722 - OJ 1979 L 103, p. 13 - OJ 1992 L 206, p. 74 - OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1