Case C-46/06: Action brought on  30 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Czech Republic
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, copyright, information society, national implementing measure

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/9

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

No Community harmonisation governs the approval of natural
and legal persons manufacturing and/or distributing refuse
collection bags.

legislation requiring the
In those circumstances, national
approval of natural and legal persons manufacturing and/or
distributing refuse collection bags must be evaluated in the
light of Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty establishing the Euro-
pean Community.

According to the case-law of the Court of
Justice, a prior
authorisation procedure such as that laid down by Article 10a
of the Regulations of the Brussels-Capital Region of 15 July
1993 on refuse collection, can restrict the free movement of
goods.

To be justified with regard to the fundamental freedom of the
free movement of goods, such a prior authorisation procedure
must pursue a public interest purpose recognised by Com-
munity law and comply with the principle of proportionality,
that is to say be appropriate to ensure the attainment of the
objective pursued and not go beyond what is necessary for its
attainment.

2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by L. Jelinek and W. Wils, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain
aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
society, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commis-
sion thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under the following provisions of that directive:
Article 3(3); Article 6(1) as regards the wording ‘any effective
technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in
the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she
is pursuing that objective’; Article 6(3); the first, fourth and
fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4); the second subparagraph
of Article 7(1); Article 7(2); Article 8(2) as regards the
wording ‘as well as of devices, products or components referred to
in Article 6(2)’; Article 8(3); Article 10(1); and Article 11(2);

2. order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 1 May 2004.

implementing the directive in

The Commission can conceive that an approval procedure
might be such as to pursue the public interest purposes of
protection of workers' health and of the environment.

(1) OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.

the Commission submits that,

However,
the
detailed rules of the approval procedure under Article 10a of
the Regulations do not comply with the principle of propor-
tionality because it is not easily accessible.

in this case,

Action brought on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Czech Republic

(Case C-46/06)

(2006/C 74/16)

(Language of the case: Czech)

(Case C-52/06)

(2006/C 74/17)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Czech Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the European Communities on 1
the Court of
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by F. Simonetti and S. Pardo Quintillán,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.