Case C-267/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, standardisation, technical regulations, technical specification, technical standard

C 213/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

1.

declare that, by making the grant of a permanent
residence permit to nationals of the other Member States
referred to in Article 1(a), (c), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Decree
No 94-221 of 11 March 1994 laying down the conditions
of entry to, and residence in France applicable to nationals
of Member States of the European Communities entitled
to freedom of movement
to a
condition of reciprocity, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC;

for persons subject

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French legislation determining the conditions for issuing
permanent residence permits to nationals of Member States
and members of their family, makes the grant of those permits
subject to a condition of reciprocity, namely the condition that
the applicant be a national of a Member State which issues
residence permits of permanent validity to French nationals
who have exercised their right to freedom of movement. Such
a condition is manifestly contrary to Article 12 EC, read with
Articles 17, 18(1), 39 and 43 EC.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo by order
of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Igor Simutenkov
against Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de
Fútbol and Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-265/03)

(2003/C 213/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional
(National High Court) Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo
(Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) of
9 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Igor Simutenkov against
Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de Fútbol and
Ministerio Fiscal on the following question:

24 June 1994, for a sports federation to apply to a professional
sportsman of Russian nationality who is lawfully employed by
a Spanish football club, as in the main proceedings, a rule
which provides that clubs may use in competitions at national
level only a limited number of players from countries outside
the European Economic Area?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Dom-
stolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case
of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren

(Case C-267/03)

(2003/C 213/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen
(Supreme Court) of 10 April 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren (public
prosecutor) on the following questions of interpretation of
Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 88/
182/EC (2) and by European Parliament and Council Directive
94/10/EC (3) in the light of the amendments to the Lottery Law
which entered into force on 1 January 1997:

1.

2.

3.

Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
the use of a product constitute a technical regulation
which must be notified under the regulation?

Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
a service which affects the use of a product constitute a
technical regulation which must be notified under the
regulation?

Can the redefinition in national law of a service connected
with the design of a product constitute a technical
regulation which must be notified under the directive, if
the new definition affects the use of the product?

Is it contrary to Article 23 of the Agreement on partnership and
cooperation establishing a partnership between the European
Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the
Russian Federation, of the other part, concluded in Corfu on

4. What is the significance for the obligation to notify of
factors such as the replacement of a licence requirement
by a prohibition in national law, the greater or lesser

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/13

value of the product/service, the size of the market for
the product/service or the effect of a new national
provision on use, which could be either a total prohibition
on use or prohibition or restriction within one of many
possible areas of use?

a view to being transported subsequently by another road
tractor to the consignee of the goods, who is established
outside the customs territory of the Community?

(1) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.

( 1) of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ
L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8).

( 2) of 22 March 1988 amending Directive 83/189/EEC laying down
a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (OJ L 81 of 26.03.1988,
p. 75).

( 3) of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision
of information in the field of technical standards and regulations
(OJ L 100 of 19.04.1994, p. 30).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 13 May 2003 in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and
Jens Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’
Export-Import

(Case C-272/03)

(2003/C 213/22)

Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-275/03)

(2003/C 213/23)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by António Caeiros and Klaus Wiedner, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly and com-
pletely Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of
review procedures to the award of public supply and
public works contracts (1), the Portuguese Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 13 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 24 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens
Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’ Export-
Import on the following question:

in conjunction with Article 670(p) of
Is Article 718(3)(d)
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning
that
that regulation prohibits the use of a road tractor
registered outside the customs territory of the Community to
transport a semi-trailer from a place within the customs
territory of the Community, where the semi-trailer is loaded
with goods, to another place within the customs territory of
the Community, where the semi-trailer is merely parked with

Pleas in law and main arguments

Portuguese law as it stands makes the award of damages for
infringements of Community law in the field of public
procurement or national rules implementing that law subject
to proof, by the person harmed by the infringment, that the
misconduct of the State or of the public body was culpably or
maliciously intended by the relevant body or office holders or
administrative officials. Such evidence can be extremely diffi-
cult or impossible to produce. The difficulty or impossibility
of producing such evidence may result in persons harmed by
an infringement not obtaining the compensation to which
they are entitled. It is therefore clear that that obligation, not
provided for by Directive 89/665, on persons who have
suffered damage is likely to undermine the effectiveness of
Article 2(1)(c) of that directive.