Case C-186/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, alcoholic beverage, consumer protection, import restriction, monopoly, public health, restriction on competition, retail selling

C 171/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.7.2005

abovementioned conflict as regards the German Regulations
will be revived when the temporally-limited exceptions expire.
The directive's aims — to minimise the impact of end-of-life
vehicles on the environment and to prevent waste as far as
possible — could be best achieved by interpreting Article
4(2)(a) as strictly as possible.

(1) OJ No L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

the client's request
is regarded by the Commission as an
obstacle to trade, which should be assessed in the light of Arti-
cles 28 EC and 30 EC. The Swedish Government, for its part,
considers that the prohibition on private import is a part of the
retail trade monopoly's existence and operating method and
should be assessed in accordance with Article 31 EC and that
as such it cannot be regarded as discriminatory or likely to
distort competition between Member States and, in the alterna-
tive, that it is appropriate and proportional.

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Sweden

(Case C-186/05)

(2005/C 171/14)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 April
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by L. Ström van Lier and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by obstructing the private import of alcoholic
beverages by independent agents or commercial transpor-
ters, which cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30
EC, the Kingdom of Sweden has infringed Article 28 of the
Treaty establishing the European Communities;

2. order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that Article 28 EC does not
permit Sweden, generally, to obstruct the private import of
alcoholic drinks by independent agents or commercial carriers.
The Commission further takes the view that the obstacle to
trade cannot be justified under Article 30 EC on the ground of
protection of public health with reference to the following
underlying reasons:
(2) to limit
access to alcoholic drinks or (3) the need to maintain age
checks;
in each case the measure is neither necessary nor
proportional to the aim stated. The fact that the retail trade
monopoly alone has the right to deal with private imports at

(1) to limit private profits,

References for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos
by orders of that court of 17 March 2005 in G. Agoras-
toudis and Others (Case C-187/05), I. Panos and Others
(Case C-188/05), K. Kotsampougioukis and Others (Case C-
189/05) and G. Akritopouolos and Others (Case C-190/05)
v Goodyear Ellas AVEE

(Cases C-187/05, C-188/05, C-189/05 and C-190/05)

(2005/C 171/15)

(Language of the case: Greek)

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by orders of the Arios Pagos (Supreme
Court of Cassation) (Greece) of 17 March 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 27 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings brought by G. Agorastoudis and Others,
I.
Panos and Others, K. Kotsampougioukis and Others and G.
Akritopouolos and Others against Goodyear Ellas AVEE on the
following question:

Given that Greek (national) law does not provide for a prior
judicial decision where an undertaking or establishment
is
closed down definitively on the sole initiative of the employer,
under Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC (1) does
that directive apply to collective redundancies caused by the
definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or
establishment which has been decided on voluntarily by the
employer without a prior judicial decision on the matter?

(1) OJ No L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29.