Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-111/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of agricultural products — Directive 89/662/EEC — Article 5 — Veterinary checks in the Member State of destination of the goods — National system of prior notification imposed on importers of certain products of animal origin from other Member States)
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal product, health control, intra-EU trade, veterinary inspection

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-464/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom
of movement for workers — Motor vehicles — Making avail-
able to the employee by the employer — Vehicle registered in
the Member State of the employer — Employee resident in
another Member State — Taxation of the motor vehicle)

(2005/C 315/01)

(Language of the case: Danish)

J. Molde),

In Case C-464/02, Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: N.B. Rasmussen and D. Martin) v Kingdom of
Denmark (Agent:
supported by Republic of
Finland, (Agent: T. Pynnä) — action under Article 226 EC for
failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 December 2002 —
the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of
the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E.
Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, in so far as

— its legislation and administrative practice do not allow workers
resident in Denmark and employed in another Member State
in work which is not their principal employment to use for
business or private purposes a company vehicle registered in
their
that other Member State where the undertaking of
employer is established, and

the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 39 EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs;

4. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 44, 22.02.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-111/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free move-
ment of agricultural products — Directive 89/662/EEC —
Article 5 — Veterinary checks in the Member State of desti-
nation of the goods — National system of prior notification
imposed on importers of certain products of animal origin
from other Member States)

(2005/C 315/02)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

— its legislation and administrative practice allow employees resi-
dent in Denmark and employed in another Member State to
use for business purposes or business and private purposes a
company vehicle registered in that other Member State in
which their employer has its registered office or principal estab-
lishment, the vehicle neither being intended to be essentially
used in Denmark on a permanent basis nor being actually so
used, only subject to the condition that the employment with
that employer is their main employment and that a tax is
paid for that purpose,

In Case C-111/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: L. Ström van Lier and A. Bordes) v Kingdom of
Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) supported by Republic of Finland
(Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — action under Article 226
EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 March 2003
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R.
Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 20
October 2005, in which it:

C 315/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2005

1. Declares that, by maintaining a system of compulsory prior notifi-
cation for imports of certain food products of animal origin from
other Member States, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC
of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Com-
munity trade with a view to the completion of the internal market;

Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N.
Colneric, S. von Bahr, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, M.
Ilešič and J. Malenovský, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 13 September 2005, in which it:

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.05.2003.

1. Annuls Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27
January 2003 on the protection of the environment through crim-
inal law;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3. Orders

the Kingdom of Denmark,
the Hellenic Republic,

the Federal Republic of
Germany,
the
French Republic, Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the
Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of
Sweden,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

the Kingdom of Spain,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.

(Grand Chamber)

of 13 September 2005

in Case C-176/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Council of the European Union (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Action for annulment — Articles 29 EU, 31(e) EU, 34 EU
and 47 EU — Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA — Protec-
tion of the environment — Criminal penalties — Community
competence — Legal basis — Article 175 EC)

(Third Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

(2005/C 315/03)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-176/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Petite, J. F. Pasquier and W. Bogensberger) supported
by: European Parliament,
(Agents: G. Garzón Clariana, H.
Duintjer Tebbens and A. Baas, and M. Gómez-Leal) v Council
of the European Union (Agent: J.-C. Piris, J. Schutte and K.
Michoel) supported by: Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde),
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and
A. Dittrich), Hellenic Republic (Agents: E.-M. Mamouna and
M. Tassopoulou), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad),
French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, F. Alabrune and
E. Puisais),
Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, and P. Gallagher,
E. Fitzsimons SC and E. Regan BL), Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agents: H.G. Sevenster and C. Wissels), Portuguese Republic
(Agent: L. Fernandes and A. Fraga Pires), Republic of Finland
(Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski), Kingdom of Sweden (Agents:
A. Kruse, K. Wistrand and A. Falk), United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. Jackson and R. Plender
QC) — Application for annulment pursuant to Article 35 EU
brought on 15 April 2003, — the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of P.
the Chamber, C.W.A.
Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg

Jann, President of

in Case C-264/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public
contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedures for the
award of public service contracts — Freedom to provide
services — Agency of delegated project contracting —
Persons to whom the task of delegated project contracting
may be entrusted — Exhaustive list of legal persons created
under French law)

(2005/C 315/04)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-264/03: ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 17 June 2003, Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: B. Stromsky, K. Wiedner and
F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
D. Petrausch — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A.
Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský,
J.-P. Puissochet, A. Borg Barthet and U. Lõhmus, Judges; Advo-
cate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: K. Sztranc, Admin-
istrator, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it: