Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-197/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Separate taxation of cigarettes and rolls of tobacco  West Single Packs )
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, excise duty, tax system, tobacco, tobacco industry

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/3

1. On a proper construction of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the
Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or
commercial matters, when the addressee of a document has refused
it on the ground that it is not in an official
language of the
Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of
transmission which the addressee understands, it is possible for the
sender to remedy that by sending the translation requested.

2. On a proper

construction of Article 8 of Regulation No
1348/2000, when the addressee of a document has refused it on
the ground that it is not in an official language of the Member
State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmis-
sion which the addressee understands, that situation may be reme-
died by sending the translation of the document in accordance
with the procedure laid down by Regulation No 1348/2000 and
as soon as possible.

In order to resolve problems connected with the way in which the
lack of translation should be remedied that are not envisaged by
it is
Regulation No 1348/2000 as interpreted by the Court,
incumbent on the national court to apply national procedural law
while taking care to ensure the full effectiveness of that regulation,
in compliance with its objective.

(1) OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

in Case C-29/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 8,
11(1) and 15(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedure for the
award of public service contracts — Contract relating to
waste disposal — Absence of call for tenders)

(2006/C 10/05)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-29/04: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: K. Wiedner) v Republic of Austria (Agent: M. Fruh-
mann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obli-
gations, brought on 28 January 2004 — the Court
(First
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K.
Schiemann (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts and

M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, in that the contract for the disposal of the town of
Mödling's waste was entered into without complying with the
procedural and advertising rules laid down by Article 8,
in
conjunction with Articles 11(1) and 15(2) of Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts, the Republic
of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

in Case C-197/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax on
the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Separate taxa-
tion of cigarettes and rolls of tobacco ‘West Single Packs’)

(2006/C 10/06)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-197/04, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: K. Gross) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: C.-D.
Quassowski, A. Tiemann and U. Forsthoff) — Action under
Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30
April 2004, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann,
President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, M. Ilešič and
E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by applying the tax rate for fine-cut tobacco for
self-rolled cigarettes to rolls of tobacco sold under the name ‘West
Single Packs’, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under Article 4(1)(b) of Council Directive
95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover
taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, and
the first paragraph of Article 2 of Council Directive 92/79/EEC
of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of taxes on cigarettes;

C 10/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.

the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection
products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to
that directive that were already on the market two years after the
date of notification of the directive, it is not required to comply
with the provisions of Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.

3. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 has the same meaning as Article

8(2) of Directive 91/414.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

4. It

is for

the national court

to assess whether the evaluation
provided for in Article 25d(2) of the Law on pesticides of 1962
(Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet) corresponds to all the characteristics of a
'review' within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414.

5. Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 must be interpreted as meaning
that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data
prior to a review.

in Case C-316/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-
lands) Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v College
voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (1)

6. There is no need to answer Question 1.

(1) OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

(Authorisation for
the placing of plant protection and
biocidal products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC —
Article 8 — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 16 — Power of
Member States during the transitional period)

(2006/C 10/07)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Fourth Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

In Case C-316/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijf-
sleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 22 July 2004,
received at the Court on 26 July 2004,
in the proceedings
between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and College
voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen, in the presence of
3M Nederland BV and Others — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
J. Makarczyk, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis
and J. Klučka
(Rapporteur),
Jacobs, Advocate General; M.
Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 10 November 2005, in which it ruled:

Judges;

F.G.

1. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as meaning
that it does not constitute a 'standstill' obligation. However, the
second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of
Article 249 EC, and Directive 98/8, require that during the tran-
sitional period prescribed in Article 16(1) of that directive the
Member States refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously
to compromise the result prescribed by that directive.

2. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
is to be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State authorises

in Case C-385/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/16/EC — Trans-European Networks — Interoperability
of the trans-European conventional rail system — Failure to
transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 10/08)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-385/04, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: W. Wils) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: C. White) — action under Article 226
EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 September
2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schie-
mann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and E. Levits
(Rapporteur),
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in
which it: