Case C-14/06: Action brought on  11 January 2006  by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, public health, waste management

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/11

previous activities in Germany. On the other hand the restric-
tion which the transitional rule places on those applicants who
have carried out previous activities in Germany during the
reference period is disproportionate: the purpose of the rule,
which is to limit the number of psychotherapists who are
authorised to practise independently of need, is not jeopardised
if comparable activities or activities of equal value, which the
migrants have carried out in other Member States, are acknowl-
edged as previous activities which are worthy of protection. On
those grounds, this case concerns a restriction of the right of
establishment which is not to be regarded as justified.

exceeded the powers it derives from that provision. In so far as
there exists scientific uncertainty as to the health and environ-
mental consequences of DecaBDE use, the Commission has
committed a manifest error in assessing the scientific evidence
and failed to respect the precautionary principle. By extending
the exemption to all the polymeric applications of DecaBDE,
without exception, it has breached the principle of proportion-
ality. The Commission has failed to provide a proper statement
of reasons for its decision to exempt DecaBDE.

(1) Official Journal L 271 , 15/10/2005 P. 0048 - 0050
(2) Official Journal L 037 , 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023

Action brought on 11 January 2006 by European Parlia-
ment against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-14/06)

(2006/C 86/18)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 January 2006 (lodged by fax on 6 January
2006) by the European Parliament, represented by Mr K.
Bradley, Mr A. Neergaard and Mrs I. Klavina, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October
2005 amending for the purpose of adapting to the technical
progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of Council on the restriction of the use
of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic
equipment;

2. order Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

ether

(‘DecaBDE’)

Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 (1)
exempts decabromodiphenyl
from the
marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of European
Parliament and Council Directive 2002/95 (2) on the restriction
of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and elec-
tronic equipment. The applicant submits that the Commission
has failed to respect the conditions laid down for such exemp-
that Directive and has therefore
tions by Article 5(1) of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
München (Germany) By order of that court of 19 January
2006 in Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanz-
direktion Nürnberg

(Case C-40/06)

(2006/C 86/19)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Finzgericht München
(Germany) of 19 January 2006, received at the Court Registry
on 25 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Jules Pharma Import-Export GmbH and Oberfi-
nanzdirektion Nürnberg on the following question:

Is the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’) as amended by
Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (OJ
2003 L 281, p.1) of 11 September 2003 (1) amending Annex I
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
statistical Nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff to
be interpreted as meaning that Melatonin capsules, put up as
dietary supplements in the absence of authorisation under the
provisions on medical products, are to be classified under
heading 3004?

(1) OJ L 281, p.1