Case C-389/05: Action brought on  27 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, artificial insemination, cattle, freedom to provide services, monopoly, public health, right of establishment

C 10/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

Is Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22
December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enfor-
cement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001
L 12, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that a seller of goods
domiciled in one Member State who, as agreed, has delivered
the goods to the purchaser, domiciled in another Member
State, at various places within that other Member State, can be
sued by the purchaser regarding a claim under the contract
relating to all the (part) deliveries — if need be, at the plaintiff's
choice — before the court of one of those places (of perfor-
mance)?

Artificial insemination services in France, in fact and in law, are
subject to a monopoly in favour of ‘centres de mise en place’,
which prevents providers of those services from other Member
States from performing those activities, either by means of the
right of establishment or by that of
freedom to provide
services. The French authorities put forward health considera-
tions which, they submit, may justify adopting or retaining
domestic measures so restrictive as to nullify those two Treaty
freedoms for practical purposes. The Commission disputes the
validity of those justifications, however, considering that, by
their very nature, those restrictions are in any event dispropor-
tionate to the health and safety objectives put forward as the
main grounds for them.

Action brought on 27 October 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-389/05)

(2006/C 10/23)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by allowing only ‘centres de mise en place’
authorised in France to carry out activities related to the
insemination of cattle, the French Republic has
artificial
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 49 EC;

2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Articles 43 and 49 EC respectively lay down the right of estab-
lishment and freedom to provide services. Article 46 also
provides that the provisions of those Articles and the measures
taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability
of the domestic provisions of a Member State providing for
special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public
policy, public security, or public health. However, that latter
provision is not at issue here, as the Commission's challenge
does not concern special treatment for foreign nationals who
wish to provide artificial insemination services in France, but
the impossibility, in law and in fact, of Community nationals
performing that activity because of the monopoly granted in
France to ‘insemination centres’ by means of, inter alia, two
provisions of French legislation.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 30 August 2005 in Jan
de Nul N.V. v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

(Case C-391/05)

(2006/C 10/24)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg of
30 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 October
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jan
de Nul N.V. and Hauptzollamt Oldenburg on the following
questions:

1. What interpretation should be given to the term ‘Com-
munity waters’ in the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of
Directive 92/81 in contrast to the term ‘inland waterways’
for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 8(2)(b) of
Directive 92/81 (1)?

2. Should the operation of a suction and holding vessel (so-
called ‘hopper dredger’)
in Community waters always be
regarded as navigation within the meaning of the first para-
graph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 or is it necessary
to draw a distinction between the various forms of activity
during the course of its use?

(1) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12.