Case-law of the Community courts in cases involving the Council (1 July to 31 December 2007)

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

Civil Service Tribunal (CST) handed down 32 judgments and orders, closing 36 cases in

1 2

which the Council was involved . Those judgments and orders are listed in the Annex.

The purpose of this six-monthly note is to summarise that case-law and to highlight aspects

which are of particular relevance for the Council's future conduct.

1

If account is taken of cases closed through removal, the total number of cases closed over the second half of 2007 rises to 39. In the same period 49 new cases involving the Council were notified to it by the CJ, the CFI and the CST. 2

At the end of December 2007, there were 249 cases involving the Council pending before the Community courts, as follows:

­ 154 direct cases with the Council as a main party (including 33 "SLOM" cases, involving actions brought by milk producers for damages);

­ 84 direct cases between parties other than the Council, with the Council intervening to uphold the legality of one of its acts (in 73 of those cases, an objection of illegality was raised against various provisions of the new Staff Regulations); ­ 11 preliminary ruling cases considering the validity of Council acts.

  • 2. 
    Twenty-two of the judgments were handed down in direct cases with the Council as main party (see section I below), five were handed down in direct cases with the Council

intervening (see section II below) and five were handed down in preliminary ruling cases on

the validity of Council acts (see section III below).

  • 3. 
    In 23 of those 32 judgments and orders, the CJ, the CFI and the CST upheld the Council's arguments. The Council failed in its submissions (sometimes only partially) in nine cases

(Nos 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 19, 22, 23 and 25 on the list).

I. DIRECT CASES WITH THE COUNCIL AS A MAIN PARTY

A. ACTIONS FOR ANNULMENT

  • 1. 
    Eight actions for annulment of Council acts were heard by the Court of Justice.
  • 2. 
    In the first of those actions (No 2 on the list), Poland had requested the annulment of Articles 33(2) and 43(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional

3

qualifications .

In support of its action, the applicant Member State had adduced a single plea of a breach of Article 253 of the TEC. According to that Member State, the two

contested provisions had to be annulled because the recitals of Directive 2005/36

did not specify any grounds which would justify maintaining, for Polish

qualifications, rules different from those applicable to qualifications obtained in

other Member States.

3

The disputed provisions contain specific rules applicable to nurses responsible for general care and midwives holding Polish qualifications.

Noting that the contested provisions of Directive 2005/36 had merely reiterated, in terms identical in substance, provisions introduced in directives previously

applicable as a result of the 2003 Act of Accession, the CJ judged that no specific

grounds were necessary. The CJ rejected the application, considering that the

single plea adduced was therefore inadmissible.

European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council

Regulations (EC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to

employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families

moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure

for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in respect of those provisions

contained under the headings "FINLAND" (under (b)), "SWEDEN" (under (c))

4

and "UNITED KINGDOM" (under (d) to (f)).

In support of its action, the Commission had adduced a single plea, whereby the fundamental error of law vitiating Regulation No 647/2005 consisted of the fact

that it had accorded to the contested benefits the character of special benefits.

Considering the Commission's plea to be justified, the CJ annulled the contested 5

provisions .

4 The contested provisions added certain Finnish, Swedish and UK benefits to the list contained in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, which sets out the special non-contributory benefits which persons covered by the Regulation may receive only within the territory of the Member State in which they reside. 5

With regard to the effects of this judgment at the time, see paragraphs 74 and 75 thereof.

adapting the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic,

the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the

Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the

Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the

adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, following

the reform of the common agricultural policy. Adopted on the basis of Article 2(3)

6

of the Treaty of Accession and Article 23 of the 2003 Act of Accession , the aim of the contested Decision was to adapt that Act to the reform of the CAP brought

7

about by Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 . To that end, Article 1(5) of that Decision provided that, in the new Member States, the

mechanism for "phasing in" direct payments, as introduced by the Act of

Accession in respect of certain specific direct payments, should apply to all direct

payments to be granted in those Member States which existed at the time of the

signature of the Treaty of Accession or future treaties.

In support of its action, the applicant Member State had adduced three pleas in respect of the contested Decision, alleging the Council's lack of competence as a

result of infringement of Article 23 of the Act of Accession, violation of the

principle of equality through the introduction of discrimination not provided for

by that Act and breach of the principle of good faith, with the compromise

resulting from the accession negotiations having been unilaterally called into

question.

6

Pursuant to that Article, "the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may make the adaptations to the provisions of this Act relating to the common agricultural policy which may prove necessary as a result of a modification in Community rules. Such adaptations may be made before the date of accession." 7

Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

As the CJ did not consider any of these pleas to be justified, it dismissed the action. With regard in particular to the first of those pleas, the substance of which

concerned the scope of the powers conferred on the Council by Article 23 of the

Act of Accession, the CJ, having analysed the concept of "necessary adaptations"

within the meaning of that Article (paragraph 48 of the Judgment), and having

defined the scope of the mechanism for "phasing in" direct payments, as provided

for by the 2003 Act of Accession (paragraphs 52 to 71 of the Judgment),

concluded that, in adopting the contested Decision, the Council had not exceeded

the powers which had been conferred on it by Article 23 of the 2003 Act of

Accession.

  • 5. 
    In the fourth of those actions (No 9 on the list), the Commission had requested the annulment of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005 to

strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against

ship-source pollution. Based on Title VI of the EU Treaty, and in particular

Articles 31(1)(e) and 34(2)(b) thereof, the contested Framework Decision was the

instrument by means of which the EU intended to approximate the laws of the

Member States in the field of criminal law by obliging them to provide for

common criminal sanctions to combat intentional or seriously negligent

ship-source pollution.

According to the Commission, the provisions of the contested Framework Decision affected the Community's competence under Article 80(2) of the

EC Treaty, in that they could have been adopted by virtue of that provision, and

this would constitute an infringement of Article 47 of the EU Treaty.

Considering that Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the contested Framework Decision could validly have been adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, the CJ

concluded that the Framework Decision had infringed Article 47 of the EU Treaty

8

and should, being indivisible, be annulled in its entirety .

8

For a detailed analysis of this judgment and its consequences, see 14709/07 JUR 385 MAR 91 DROIPEN 101 TRANS 340 + COR 1 + COR 2.

  • 6. 
    In the fifth and sixth of those actions (Nos 11 and 16 on the list), Spain had contested the allocation of catch quotas among Member States as laid down by

9 10

Regulations (EC) Nos 27/2005 and (EC) No 51/2006 for 2005 and 2006 respectively, insofar as those Regulations had not allocated to it certain quotas in

the Community waters of the North Sea and Baltic Sea.

In support of its actions, the applicant Member State had adduced three pleas, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, breach of

the 1985 Act of Accession and infringement of Article 20(2) of Council

Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and

sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy.

As none of these pleas was allowed, the actions were dismissed.

  • 7. 
    In the last two actions for annulment of Council acts judged by the CJ in the second half of 2007 (Nos 17 and 18 on the list), the United Kingdom had

requested the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of

26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of

Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the

European Union and Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of

13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports

and travel documents issued by Member States. In those actions, the applicant

Member State contested the fact that it had not been allowed to take part in the

adoption of the contested Regulations.

9

Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ L 12, 14.1.2005, p. 1). 10

Council Regulation (EC) No 51/2006 of 22 December 2005 fixing for 2006 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ L 16, 20.1.2006, p. 1).

The Council had refused such participation, considering that both Regulations constituted a development of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the

United Kingdom did not take part in accordance with Council

Decision 2000/365/EC of 29 May 2000 concerning the request of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to take part in some of the

provisions of the Schengen acquis.

In support of its actions, the applicant Member State's principal claim was that, in excluding it from the process for the adoption of the contested Regulations, the

11

Council had relied on an incorrect interpretation of the Schengen Protocol and had infringed Article 5 thereof. In the opinion of that Member State, the system

introduced by Article 5 of the Schengen Protocol (concerning the adoption of new

measures) was not subordinate to that provided for in Article 4 of the Protocol

(concerning the acceptance by Ireland and the United Kingdom of the existing

provisions of the Schengen acquis). On the contrary, Articles 4 and 5 were

mutually independent, and consequently the United Kingdom was not obliged to

have been given prior permission pursuant to Article 4 to take part in the

corresponding Schengen acquis in order to be able to participate in measures

adopted on the basis of Article 5.

Dismissing the applicant Member State's interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 5(1) of the Schengen Protocol, the CJ ruled that "this provision must be

understood as being applicable only to proposals and initiatives to build upon an

area of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom and/or Ireland have

been permitted to take part pursuant to Article 4 of the same Protocol"

(paragraphs 68 and 50 of the respective judgments). Insofar as, in the case in

question, it had been established that the United Kingdom had not taken part in

the area of the Schengen acquis to which the contested Regulations related, the CJ

ruled that the Council had acted correctly in refusing to allow that Member State

to participate in the adoption of such measures, and consequently dismissed its

actions.

11

Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the EU, annexed to the EU and EC Treaties by the Treaty of Amsterdam, signed on 2 October 1997.

  • 8. 
    Four actions for annulment of Council acts were heard by the CFI in the second half of 2007.
  • 9. 
    The first of those actions (No 20 on the list) sought to annul the approval by the 12

Community, by Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom , of the provisions of the Agreement with Switzerland on Trade in Agricultural Products, signed on

21 June 1999, which establish exclusive protection for the name "champagne"

(Article 5(1)-(6) and Appendix 2 to Annex 7 to that Agreement). In the applicants'

view, this would lead to a prohibition on the marketing of wines from the

commune of Champagne, situated in the canton of Vaud in Switzerland, under the

name "champagne".

Considering that Decision 2002/309 had not significantly altered the applicants' legal situation, and that they could not be regarded as being individually affected

by the system established by that Agreement, the CFI dismissed their action as

13

inadmissible .

  • 10. 
    The two following actions (Nos 22 and 23 on the list) were for the definitive

annulment of Council Decision 2006/379/EC of 29 May 2006 implementing

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures

directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism,

insofar as that Decision applied to the applicants.

12

Decision 2002/309/EC, Euratom of the Council, and of the Commission as regards the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation, of 4 April 2002 on the conclusion of seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation. 13

The action in question also included an action for damages which was likewise dismissed in the absence of proof of the existence of a direct causal link between the contested Decision and the damage allegedly suffered.

In support of their actions, the applicants had adduced three pleas, alleging infringement of the right of defence, violation of the obligation laid down in

Article 253 of the EC Treaty and infringement of the right to effective legal

protection.

In line with its earlier case law (but later than the Council Decision concerned) concerning autonomous restrictive Community measures, adopted pursuant to

14

Regulation No 2580/2001 , the CFI upheld the pleas adduced by the applicants 15 16

and therefore annulled the contested Decision insofar as it applied to them .

  • 11. 
    The last of those actions (No 26 on the list) sought to annul the Decisions of the

Council and of the ECB rejecting the requests for access to documents concerning

the Basle-Nyborg Agreement of September 1987 on strengthening the European

Monetary System (EMS). In support of its action, the applicant had adduced three

pleas, alleging infringement, firstly, of the principles of good management and

protection of legitimate expectations; secondly, of the duty to state reasons; and

thirdly, of the fundamental principle of Community law relating to the access of

citizens to documents.

14

Judgment of 12 December 2006, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d'Iran v. Council, Case T-228/02, ECR p. II-4665. 15

The first of those actions (Case T-47/03) also included an action for damages. Considering that the damage resulting from the sufficiently serious violation of the applicant's right of defence would be adequately compensated for by the annulment of the contested act, and that, furthermore, neither the reality and scope of the alleged damage nor the existence of a causal link between such damage and the alleged substantive illegalities had been manifestly established, the CFI dismissed this action for damages. 16 It is pointed out that, through Council decisions adopted after the aforementioned Judgments, taking into account the requirements of protection in particular of the right to defence, the applicants in these Cases (Cases T-47/03 and T-327/03), like the applicant in Case T-228/02 (as referred to in footnote 14), remain on the list of persons, groups and entities subject to autonomous restrictive Community measures pursuant to Regulation No 2580/2001.

As none of those pleas was considered to be well-founded, the action for 17

annulment of the Council Decision was dismissed .

  • 12. 
    In the specific context of civil service disputes, two actions for annulment of

Council acts were heard and dismissed by the CST. The first of these actions

(No 29 on the list) sought to annul a decision of the Council's AA rejecting an

18

official's request for reclassification of his grade . The second (No 30 on the list) sought to annul a decision of the Council's AA not to promote an official in the

2005 promotion exercise.

B. APPLICATIONS FOR DAMAGES

  • 1. 
    The CFI ruled on two applications for damages which sought to establish the non-contractual liability of the Community on account of a Council act.
  • 2. 
    In those applications, joined because they were connected (No 25 on the list), two 19

German SLOM milk producers had applied for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of

31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in

Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector.

17

On the other hand, the same action was upheld insofar as it was directed against the ECB, whose decision was annulled as it failed to satisfy the requirement to state reasons as laid down in Article 253 of the EC Treaty.

The aforementioned action for annulment was accompanied by an action for damages brought by the same applicant against the Council and the ECB (Case T-337/04). In the absence of proof of the existence of real and certain damage or of a direct causal link between the latter and the allegedly unlawful conduct of the Council and the ECB, the CFI also dismissed the action for damages. 18 This judgment is currently under appeal at the CFI (Case T-436/07 P). 19

The term "SLOM producers" is commonly applied to milk producers who have entered into a commitment pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 March 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds.

The producers in question had rejected the compensation offer made pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of

compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily

prevented from carrying on their trade. During proceedings, the applicants had

abandoned their opposition to the parameters for calculating compensation as laid

down in that Regulation. Since the dispute was therefore restricted to the question

of calculating the period of limitation, the CFI ruled that the actions had partially

lapsed and specified the period for which the applicants ought to be compensated.

It invited the parties to agree on the amounts to be paid within six months.

C. APPEALS

  • 1. 
    Seven appeals brought by parties who had failed at first instance in their submissions against the Council were heard by the CJ and the CFI during the

second half of 2007.

  • 2. 
    Six of those appeals were dismissed. The following were thus confirmed:

20

­ a judgment of the CFI whereby the latter had rejected an action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by the implementation of the

procedures of the Customs Union instituted by the Ankara Agreement and

its Additional Protocols and Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association

Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the

21

Customs Union (No 1 on the list) ;

20

Judgment of 30 March 2006, Yeda Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v. Council and Commission, Case T-367/03, ECR p. II-873. 21

This judgment is currently the subject of a request for a review (Case C-255/06 P-REV).

22

­ a judgment of the CFI whereby the latter had rejected an action for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a

consequence of the infection and subsequent death of members of their

families who developed a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease linked to

the appearance and spread within Europe of bovine spongiform

encephalopathy, for which the Council and the Commission are alleged to

be liable (No 6 on the list);

23

­ a judgment of the CFI whereby the latter had rejected proceedings for non-contractual liability brought by a milk producer to obtain compensation

for damage allegedly suffered by him as a result of his having been

prevented from marketing milk from 1 April 1984 (No 10 on the list);

24

­ a judgment of the CFI whereby the latter had rejected an action for compensation for damage allegedly suffered following the Council's

authorisation of the transfer to France of part of the quota for anchovy

allocated to Portugal (No 14 on the list);

25

­ a judgment of the CFI whereby the latter had rejected an action for annulment of a Council Decision refusing to grant the applicant entitlement

to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to

the Staff Regulations (No 15 on the list);

22

Judgment of 13 December 2006, É.R. and Others v. Council and Commission, Case T-138/03, ECR p. II-4923. 23

Judgment of 30 May 2006, Blom and Others v. Council and Commission, Case T-87/94, ECR p. II-1385. 24

Judgment of 19 October 2005, Cofradía de pescadores "San Pedro" de Bermeo and Others v. Council, Case T-415/03, ECR p. II-4355. 25

Judgment of 25 October 2005, de Bustamente Tello v. Council, Case T-368/03, ECR-SC p. I-A-321 and II-1439.

26

­ a judgment of the CST whereby the latter had rejected an action the substance of which was for annulment of a decision whereby the authority

entitled to conclude contracts for the Commission had established the

grading of a contract staff member (No 21 on the list).

  • 3. 
    The last of the aforementioned appeals (No 3 on the list) was, on the other hand, allowed.

In that appeal, a Council official had sought to have set aside the judgment of the 27

CFI by which the latter had rejected her action for annulment of the Council Decision calculating her years of pensionable service following transfer to the

Community scheme of the redemption value of the pension rights which she had

acquired under the Austrian scheme. In support of her action, the applicant had

adduced inter alia a plea of a breach of the principle of non-discrimination on

grounds of gender. In her view, the CFI had disregarded that principle by

considering that the use by the Council of factors which vary according to sex in

order to calculate the number of additional years of pensionable service to be

credited was objectively justified by the need to ensure sound financial

management of the Community pension scheme.

Finding that this plea was admissible, the CJ set aside the contested judgment. Considering, moreover, that the action could be ruled on, the Court itself gave a

ruling on the applicant's request for the annulment of the contested Council

Decision. In this regard, it noted that, when establishing the number of years of

pensionable service of the applicant, the Council had taken into account a factor

relating to sex, thereby violating the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of

28

gender . It therefore annulled the contested Council Decision.

26

Judgment of 19 October 2006, De Smedt v. Commission, Case F-59/05, not yet published in the ECR. 27

Judgment of 18 March 2004, Lindorfer v. Council, Case T-204/01, ECR-SC p. I-A-83 and II-361. 28

It should be pointed out that the factors criticised in this Court judgment no longer apply within the Council.

II. DIRECT CASES WITH THE COUNCIL INTERVENING

  • 1. 
    Five direct cases between parties other than the Council, in which the latter intervened, were heard by the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal in the second

half of 2007.

  • 2. 
    The Council intervened in these cases in order to uphold the legality of one of its acts, which had been challenged as an incidental question through four objections of

illegality within the meaning of Article 241 EC.

The objections of illegality in question were specifically raised against:

­ Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, in the version applicable as from 1 May 2004 (Transitional rules for grading at recruitment) (see No 24 on the

list); having accepted none of the grounds raised in support of the objection of

29

illegality, the CFI dismissed the objection ;

­ Annex XII to the Staff Regulations, in the version applicable as from 1 May 2004, setting out the method of calculating the rate of officials' contribution to the

pension scheme (see No 27 on the list); having considered none of the grounds

raised in support of the objection of illegality well-founded, the CST dismissed

30

the objection ;

­ Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, which lays down the conditions governing the grant of the expatriation allowance (see No 28 on the

list); since the objection of illegality was not made in the prior administrative

complaint, it was rejected as inadmissible;

29

For a detailed analysis of that judgment, see 12276/07 JUR 299 STAT 28, section B; that judgment is at present the subject of an appeal to the Court of Justice (Case C-443/07 P). 30

For a detailed analysis of that judgment, see 12276/07 JUR 299 STAT 28, section A(II).

­ Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, on the transfer to the Community pension scheme of pension rights acquired before an official's entry

into the service of the Communities (see Nos 31 and 32 on the list); as no

argument was advanced in its support, the objection of illegality was considered

as not meeting the requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of

the CFI, and was rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

III. PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON THE VALIDITY OF COUNCIL ACTS

  • 1. 
    The CJ gave seven preliminary rulings on the validity of Council acts in the second half of 2007.
  • 2. 
    In one of the questions it put in the context of the first of those cases (see No 4 on the list) the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division,

(United Kingdom) in substance asked the CJ to examine the validity of Council

Regulation (EEC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 imposing a definitive

anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and

Pakistan with regard to the anti-dumping agreement set out in Annex 1 A to the

31

agreement setting up the WTO and the Community's basic anti-dumping Regulation .

As regards the validity of Regulation No 2398/97 with regard to the WTO anti-dumping agreement, on the basis of its case law on the effects of WTO agreements on the

32

Community legal system , the CJ did not find that the legality of that Regulation could be determined in the light of the aforementioned anti-dumping agreement.

31 Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. 32

See, inter alia, the judgments of 30 September 2003 in Biret International v. Council, Case C-93/02 P, ECR p. I-10497, point 52, and of 1 March 2005 in Van Parys, Case C-377/02, ECR p. I-1465, point 39 and the case law cited.

On the other hand, as regards the validity of Regulation No 2398/97 with regard to the basic anti-dumping Regulation, and in particular Article 2(11) thereof, the CJ found that

when the dumping margin of the product concerned in the investigation was determined

a clear error of judgment (use of the so-called "zeroing" method of reducing dumping

margins) had been made by the Community institutions. Article 1 of Regulation

No 2398/07 was accordingly declared invalid.

  • 3. 
    In the context of the second of those preliminary rulings (see No 5 on the list), the CJ stated that the last sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 5(3)(b) of Council

Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the

Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids,

read in conjunction with paragraph 3(d) of the same Article, was invalid insofar as it

excluded the nominal volume of 0,071 litres from the harmonised Community range of

33

nominal volumes set out in column I of section 4 of Annex III to that Directive .

  • 4. 
    In the questions it put in the context of the third of the abovementioned cases (see No 12 on the list) the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) indirectly called in question the validity of

Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002

amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs

and, in particular, Article 1(4) thereof, which requires the manufacturers of

feedingstuffs to list on the packaging the feed materials used in compound feedingstuffs

for animals other than pets, indicating the percentages by weight present in the

34

compound feedingstuff; a tolerance of ± 15 % of the declared value being permitted . The CJ's new examination of the validity of that provision of Directive 2002/2 once

again revealed no element affecting its validity.

33 For a detailed analysis of that judgment see 15541/07 JUR 412 MI 308. 34

The CJ had once already, at the request of the same court, considered the question of the validity of that provision in its judgment of 6 December 2005 in ABNA and others, Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04, ECR p. I-10423. On that occasion it found no element that affected its validity.

  • 5. 
    In the context of the fourth of these preliminary rulings (see No 13 on the list), the Hovrätten för Övre Norrland (Sweden) asked, in substance, whether, under Article 9(3)

of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for

products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such

products as amended by Directive 92/108/EEC, heating oil acquired in one Member

State by an individual for his own use and transported for him to another Member State

in which it was used could be made subject to excise duty in the Member State of use,

whatever the means of transport employed, and if so, whether that provision was

compatible with the principle of the free movement of goods and with the principal of

proportionality. Having replied in the negative to the first question, the CJ did not need

to reply to the second.

  • 6. 
    In the context of the last three cases, joined because of their connection (see No 19 on the list), the Sozialgericht Berlin (Germany) and the Landessozialgericht

Berlin Brandenburg (Germany) questioned the court concerning the compatibility with

the principle of the free movement of persons of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71

of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to

self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community,

under which Germany had been authorised make the inclusion, for the purpose of the

payment of old-age benefits, of periods spent outwith the territory of the Federal

35

Republic subject to the condition that the beneficiary reside in Germany . In its judgment on those cases the CJ stated that the provisions in question were incompatible

with the free movement of persons within the Union.

_______________

35

In particular, it was a question of the provisions of Annexes III, Parts A and B, point 35, entitled "Germany-Austria", in (e), and VI, Part C, entitled "Germany", point 1, to the aforementioned Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97.

ANNEX

I. COURT OF JUSTICE*

  • 1. 
    Order of 5 July 2007, Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v. Council and Commission, Case C-255/06 P, not published in the ECR
  • 2. 
    Judgment of 18 July 2007, Poland v. Parliament and Council, Case C-460/05, not published in the ECR
  • 3. 
    Judgment of 11 September 2007, Lindorfer v. Council, Case C-277/04 P, ECR p. I-6767
  • 4. 
    Judgment of 27 September 2007, Ikea Wholesale, Case C-351/04, ECR p. I-7723
  • 5. 
    Judgment of 4 October 2007, Schutzverband der Spirituosen Industrie, Case C-457/05, not yet published in the ECR
  • 6. 
    Order of 4 October 2007, É.R. and others v. Council and Commission, Case C-100/07 P, not yet published in the ECR
  • 7. 
    Judgment of 18 October 2007, Commission v. Parliament and Council, Case C-299/05, not yet published in the ECR
  • 8. 
    Judgment of 23 October 2007, Poland v. Council, Case C-273/04, not yet published in the ECR
  • 9. 
    Judgment of 23 October 2007, Commission v. Council, Case C-440/05, not yet published in the ECR
  • 10. 
    Judgment of 25 October 2007, Blom v. Council and Commission, Case C-344/06 P, not

yet published in the ECR

  • 11. 
    Judgment of 8 November 2007, Spain v. Council, Case C-141/05, not yet published in

the ECR

  • 12. 
    Order of 8 November 2007, Fratelli Martini and Cargill, Case C-421/06, not yet

published in the ECR

  • 13. 
    Judgment of 15 November 2007, Granberg, Case C-330/05, not yet published in the

ECR

  • 14. 
    Judgment of 22 November 2007, Cofradía de pescadores "San Pedro" de Bermeo and

others v. Council, Case C-6/06 P, not yet published in the ECR

  • 15. 
    Judgment of 29 November 2007, De Bustamante Tello v. Council, Case C-10/06 P, not

yet published in the ECR

  • 16. 
    Judgment of 13 December 2007, Spain v. Council, Case C-184/06, not yet published in

the ECR

  • 17. 
    Judgment of 18 December 2007, United Kingdom v. Council, Case C-77/05, not yet

published in the ECR

  • 18. 
    Judgment of 18 December 2007, United Kingdom v. Council, Case C-137/05, not yet

published in the ECR

  • 19. 
    Judgment of 18 December 2007, Habelt and others, Joined Cases C-396/05, C-419/05

and C-450/05, not yet published in the ECR

II.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE*

  • 20. 
    Order of 3 July 2007, Commune of Champagne and others v. Council and Commission,

Case T-212/02, not yet published in the ECR

  • 21. 
    Order of 9 July 2007, De Smedt v. Council and Commission, Case T-415/06 P, not yet

published in the ECR

  • 22. 
    Judgment of 11 July 2007, Sison v. Council, Case T-47/03, not yet published in the ECR
  • 23. 
    Judgment of 11 July 2007, Al Aqsa v. Council and Commission, Case T-327/03, not yet

published in the ECR

  • 24. 
    Judgment of 11 July 2007, Centeno Mediavilla and others v. Commission,

Case T-58/05, not yet publislhed in the ECR

  • 25. 
    Judgment of 27 September 2007, Pelle v. Council and Commission, Joined

Cases T-8/95 and T-9/95, not yet published in the ECR

  • 26. 
    Judgment of 27 November 2007, Pitsiorlas v. Council and ECB, Joined Cases T-3/00

and T-334/07, not yet published in the ECR

III. CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

  • 27. 
    Judgment of 11 July 2007, Wils v. Parliament, Case F-105/05, not yet published in the

ECR

  • 28. 
    Judgment of 11 July 2007, B v. Commission, Case F-7/06, not yet published in the ECR
  • 29. 
    Judgment of 20 September 2007, Giannopoulos v. Council, Case F-111/06, not yet

published in the ECR

  • 30. 
    Judgment of 7 November 2007, Hinderyckx v. Council, Case F-57/06, not yet published

in the ECR

  • 31. 
    Order of 11 December 2007, Bermejo v. Commission, Case F-60/07, not yet published

in the ECR

  • 32. 
    Order of 11 December 2007, Kolountzios v. Commission, Case F-117/07, not yet

published in the ECR

The texts of Community court decisions on this list but not published or not yet published in the European Court Reports are available on the internet site of the Court of Justice at www.curia.europa.eu.

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie