Case C-483/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2005-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, administrative formalities, harbour installation, harmonisation of standards, maritime transport, transport document

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/15

(b) the child has himself pursued employment as a worker
within the legitimate labour
the Federal
Republic of Germany and has thereby acquired in his
own right a right of residence that is the corollary of the
right of free access to employment under the second or
third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, and
has subsequently forfeited that right?

force of

Communities in case T-213/02 (1) between SNF S.A. and the
Commission of
the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 November 2004 by SNF S.A.S, established in Andrézieux,
France, represented by Messrs K. Van Meldegem and C. Mereu,
lawyers.

Is such forfeiture caused by

(aa) the fact that he left his last place of employment as
a result of drug addiction-induced summary termi-
nation of his employment by his employer?

(bb) the fact that, following a period of ill health of
more than three months, he did not register with
the competent authority as unemployed for a
period of three working days between the end of
his incapacity for work and his arrest
for the
commission of a criminal offence?

that

(cc) the fact that he was sentenced to a term of impri-
sonment totalling three years and three months for
aggravated robbery and drug offences,
the
sentence was not suspended (even at a later date),
that the whole of the sentence was served by offset-
ting the period spent on remand pending trial and
that during that time he was not available to the
legitimate labour force but, approximately three
months after his release, did find employment
again with a firm on a temporary basis, without
then having any national right of residence?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does
a Turkish national forfeit his right of residence that is the
corollary of the right of free access to employment under
the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No
1/80 in the circumstances described above in Question 1b)?

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 6

September 2004 in case T-213/02;

— declare the Apellant's requests in case T-213/02 admissible;

— rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to

the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

— order the European Commission to bear all costs and

expenses of both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the contested order of the Court of
First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

a) The Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 114(1) of
the Rules of Procedure and infringed the principle of legal
effectiveness and the duty to state reasons;

b) The Court of First Instance erred in law in the legal assess-

ment of the facts;

c) The order of the Court of First Instance infringes the right
to complete and effective judicial protection, and the right
to a fair hearing.

(1) OJ C 233, 28.9.2002, p. 28.

Appeal brought on 22 November 2004 by SNF S.A.S.
against the order made on 6 September 2004 by the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-213/02 between SNF S.A. and the
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-482/04 P)

(2005/C 19/29)

(Language of procedure: English)

(Case C-483/04)

(2005/C 19/30)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An appeal against the order made on 6 September 2004 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European

Justice of

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
the European Communities on 22
Court of
November 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Enrico Traversa
acting as Agents.

C 19/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.1.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2002/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities
for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the
in any case, by
the Community or,
Member States of
having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 7 of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of
the directive expired on 19 September 2003.

(1) OJ L 67 of 9.3.2002, p. 31.

than life assurance and amending Directives

other
73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC;

— Article 14(5) of Directive 2002/83/EC (2) of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 5 November
2002 concerning life assurance;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although Article 12(6) of Directive 92/49 and Article 14(5) of
Directive 2002/83 give the Member States the authority to
grant
the option of cancelling contracts, a Member State
breaches those provisions where, when granting that option, it
discriminates, directly or indirectly, between insurance under-
takings with their head office in the Member State in question
and undertakings of other Member States which are operating
in that Member State under the right of establishment or the
freedom to provide services.

The Spanish legislation is discriminatory because it provides for
different and more favourable treatment for Spanish insurance
undertakings
from other
Member States as regards the option of cancellation and that
difference in treatment is not based on objective differences
between the situations contemplated.

insurance undertakings

than for

Action brought on 6 December 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992.
(2) OJ L 345 of 19.12.2002.

The difference in treatment is not justified by considerations
relating to consumer protection.

(Case C-501/04)

(2005/C 19/31)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 6
December 2004, by the Commission of the European Commu-
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and
nities,
Ramón Vidal Puig, of its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by giving policyholders the option of cancelling
contracts in the event of transfer of its portfolio under the
right of establishment or the freedom to provide services
where the transferor and/or transferee is not an insurance
undertaking with its head office in Spain, but not where the
transfer is between Spanish undertakings, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under

— Article 12(6) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of 18
June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
insurance
administrative provisions relating to direct

Removal from the register of Case C-177/02 (1)

(2005/C 19/32)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 19 October 2004 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-177/02 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Corte Suprema di cassazione): Agenzia per le
in Agricoltura – AGEA v Azienda Agricola Fava
Erogazioni
Allessandro e Delledonne Carla.

(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.