Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-336/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division: easyCar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading (Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts — Directive 97/7/EC — Contracts for the provision of transport services — Meaning — Contracts for car hire)
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, distance selling, interpretation of the law, provision of services, vehicle rental

C 115/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of
services is to be interpreted as meaning that the recognition by a
Member State of the right of residence of a recipient of services
who is a national of another Member State may not be made
subject to his production of a valid identity card or passport, where
his identity and nationality can be proven unequivocally by other
means.

de Barcelona (Spain), made by decision of 5 May 2003,
received at the Court on 2 June 2003,
in the proceedings
between QDQ Media SA and Alejandro Omedas Lecha — the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President
of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

2. It is contrary to Article 49 EC for nationals of a Member State to
be required in another Member State to present a valid identity
card or passport in order to prove their nationality, when the latter
State does not impose a general obligation on its own nationals to
provide evidence of identity, and permits them to prove their iden-
tity by any means allowed by national law.

3. A detention order with a view to deportation in respect of a
national of another Member State, imposed on the basis of failure
to present a valid identity card or passport even when there is no
threat to public policy, constitutes an unjustified restriction on the
freedom to provide services and is therefore contrary to Article 49
EC.

4. It is for nationals of a Member State residing in another Member
State in their capacity as recipients of services to provide evidence
establishing that their residence is lawful. If no such evidence is
provided,
the host Member State may undertake deportation,
subject to the limits imposed by Community law.

(1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.

Where it is not possible on the basis of national law to include, in the
calculation of the costs which an individual who owes a business debt
might be ordered to pay, the expenses arising from representation by
an abogado or procurador of the creditor in judicial proceedings for
the recovery of that debt, Directive 2000/35/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late
payment in commercial transactions cannot of itself serve as the basis
for the inclusion of such expenses.

(1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.03.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-336/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery
Division: easyCar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading (1)

(Protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts —
Directive 97/7/EC — Contracts for the provision of transport
services — Meaning — Contracts for car hire)

in Case C-235/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 Barcelona: QDQ
Media SA v Alejandro Omedas Lecha (1)

(Directive 2000/35/EC — Definition of recovery costs —
Expenses of abogado or procurador in judicial proceedings
where use of those legal practitioners is not required —
Impossible to include in the costs on the basis of national law
— Impossible to rely on the directive against an individual)

(2005/C 115/07)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-235/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35

(2005/C 115/08)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-336/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales, Chancery Division (United Kingdom), made by decision
of 21 July 2003, received at the Court on 20 July 2003, in the
proceedings pending before that court between easyCar (UK)
Ltd and Office of Fair Trading — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Schiemann and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005,
the operative part of which is as follows:

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/5

Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in
respect of distance contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that
‘contracts for the provision of transport services’ includes contracts for
the provision of car hire services.

(1) OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-342/03: Kingdom of Spain v Council of the Euro-
pean Union (1)

(Common commercial policy — Canned tuna originating in
Thailand and the Philippines — Mediation within the WTO
— Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 — Tariff quota)

(2005/C 115/09)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-342/03, application for annulment under Article 230
EC, brought on 4 August 2003, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N.
Díaz Abad) v Council of the European Union (Agents: M.
Bishop and D. Canga Fano) supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and R. Vidal Puig) —
the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, N. Colneric,
Ilešič
Jacobs, Advocate
(Rapporteur) and E. Levits,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March
2005, in which it:

J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M.

Judges; F.G.

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs, except

those
incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which
must bear its own costs.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 March 2005

in Case C-449/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities against French Republic (1)

(Failure of a member State to fulfil obligations — Manage-
ment of waste — Waste tip at Saint-Laurent du Maroni —
Directives 75/442/EE and 91/156/EEC)

(2005/C 115/10)

(Language of the case French)

In case C-449/03, action for failure to fulfil obligations brought
on 24 October 2003 under Article 226 EC, Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and B.
Stromsky) against French Republic (agents: G. de Bergues and
D. Petrausch), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva
de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, C.
Gulmann and J. Klucka, Judges, Advocate General: L. A. Geel-
hoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 10 March
2005 in which it:

1. Declares that,

— by failing to issue a permit for the operation of the tip for
household and equivalent waste situated within the limits of
the municipality of Saint-Laurent du Maroni
in French
Guyana,

— by refraining from taking the necessary measures to ensure
that the waste on the abovementioned tip is treated or disposed
of without endangering human health and without using
processes or methods which might harm the environment, and

— by refraining from taking the necessary measures to ensure
that the operator of the abovementioned tip itself treats or
disposes of waste or has it handled by a private or public
waste collector,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
9, 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18
March 1991;

2. Orders French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.

(1) OJ C 289, of 29.11.2003.