This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/121/14
Case C-155/06: Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Case C-155/06: Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Case C-155/06: Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
OJ C 121, 20.5.2006, p. 8–9
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.5.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 121/8 |
Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-155/06)
(2006/C 121/14)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare that, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has failed to adopt all the final measures necessary to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of the Council 96/29 (1) Euratom, laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation, because of the lack of provisions allowing for appropriate intervention in all situations of lasting exposure to ionising radiation resulting from the after effects of a radiological emergency or a past practice; |
|
— |
order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Title IX of the Directive lays down the obligations of Member States regarding the preparation and implementation of intervention in cases of radiological emergency. Article 53 provides that Member States are responsible for intervention in cases of lasting exposure.
The United Kingdom authorities have acknowledged that their existing legislation fails to effect complete transposition of the directive, in so far as it does not provide for measures in all cases where a situation of radioactive contamination is identified. The complaint which provided the impetus for the present procedure exposed the fact that it is not possible to identify and to take measures against lasting exposure for past activities for which a licence had never been issued, intervention only being possible where exposure can be linked to a given past activity carried out on land where possible radioactive contamination is now being identified.
(1) OJ L 314, 4.12.1996, p. 20.