Case C-367/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation, Belgium, by order of that court of  6 September 2005  in the criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, Schengen Agreement, interpretation of the law, money laundering, penalty

C 48/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-96/05: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/65/EC — Annual and consolidated accounts of certain
types of companies — Failure to transpose within the period
prescribed)

(2006/C 48/19)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case C-96/05 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Braun and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent:
N. Dafniou) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to fulfil
obligations pursuant
to Article 226 EC, brought on 21
February 2005 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K.
Schiemann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur)
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
and E. Levits,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005,
in
which it:

(Agent: M. Wimmer) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to
fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, brought on 30
March 2005– the Court
J.
Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and
J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December
2005, in which it:

(Fifth Chamber), composed of

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the
laws,
to
comply with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community
vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing
Council Directive 93/75/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the
laws,
to
comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives
78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the
valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain
types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institu-
tions,
its obligations
under that directive.

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Cassation, Belgium, by order of that court of 6 September
2005 in the criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijen-
brink

(Case C-367/05)

(2006/C 48/21)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-144/05: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2002/59/EC — Failure to transpose within the period
prescribed)

(2006/C 48/20)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-144/05 Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v Kingdom of Belgium

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Court of Cassation,
Belgium, of 6 September 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 29 September 2005,
in the criminal proceedings against
Norma Kraaijenbrink on the following questions:

1.

‘Must Article 54 of the Schengen (1) implementing agree-
ment of 19 June 1990, read with Article 71 of that agree-
ment be construed as meaning that the criminal offences of
acquiring or having available in the Netherlands or transfer-
ring from there sums of money in foreign currencies origin-
ating from the trade in narcotics (offences which were
prosecuted and in respect of which a conviction was
obtained in the Netherlands for receiving and handling in
breach of Article 416 of the Criminal Code), which differ
from the criminal offences consisting in the exchanging at
exchange bureaus in Belgium of the relevant sums of money
from the trade in narcotics received in the Netherlands

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/11

(prosecuted in Belgium as the offence of receiving and hand-
ling and performing other acts in regard to goods resulting
from crime, in breach of Article 505 of the Criminal Code),
are to be regarded as the “same acts” for the purposes of
Article 54 aforesaid where the courts establish that they
share a common intention and thus legally constitute a
single act?’

Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine,
Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newto-
nabbey, Omagh and Portrush at the latest by 31 December
2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 4
paragraphs 1 and 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1).

2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:

Ireland to pay the costs.

2. order The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

‘Must the expression “may not be prosecuted … for the
same acts” in Article 54 of the Convention implementing
the Schengen Agreement be interpreted as meaning that the
“same acts” may also be constituted by different acts sharing
the same intention, and thus constituting a single act, which
would mean that a defendant can no longer be prosecuted
for the offence of money-laundering in Belgium once he has
been duly convicted in the Netherlands of other offences
committed with the same intention, regardless of any other
offences committed during the same period but which
became known or in respect of which prosecutions were
brought in Belgium only after the date of the definitive
foreign judgment or, in such a case, must that expression be
interpreted as meaning that
the court determining the
merits may enter a conviction in respect of these other acts
on a subsidiary basis, taking into account the sentences
those other
already imposed, unless
sentences in its view constitute sufficient punishment of all
the offences, and ensuring that the totality of the penalties
imposed may not exceed the maximum of
the severest
penalty?’

it considers

that

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is of the view that the failure by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure
adequate treatment is provided for the entirety of the waste
water discharges produced in the agglomerations of Bangor,
Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Londonderry, Larne,
Lerwick, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh, Brighton, Portrush,
Donaghdee and Bideford/ Northam is in breach of Article 4,
paragraphs 1 and 3, of the directive. Furthermore, the failure to
control substantial new developments in the agglomerations of
Portrush, Newtonabbey, Bangor, Londonderry and Larne or to
ensure that
is accompanied by mitigating
measures is exacerbating the breaches of the aforementioned
articles of the Directive in these five agglomerations.

their approval

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment OJ L 135, 30.05.1991 P. 40 - 52

(1) OJ 2000, L 239, p. 19.

Action brought on 18.11.2005 by Commission against the
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

(Case C-405/05)

(2006/C 48/22)

(Language of the case: English)

Appeal brought on 23 November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf
and Al Barakaat International Foundation against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber
(Extended Composition)) of 21 September 2005 in Case T-
306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foun-
dation v the Council of the European Union and Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-415/05 P)

(2006/C 48/23)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

An action against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18.11.2005 by the Commission,
represented by Sara Pardo Quintillan, Xavier Lewis and Hubert
van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that in failing to ensure that adequate treatment is
provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 21 September
2005 in Case T-306/01 Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat Interna-
tional Foundation v the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the European Communities on 23
the Court of
November 2005 by Ahmed Yusuf and Al Barakaat Interna-
tional Foundation, Spånga (Sweden),
represented by Leif
Silbersky and Thomas Olsson, lawyers.

Justice of