Case C-94/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, noise, noise pollution, noise protection, pollution control measures

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission
the Portuguese
of

the European Communities against

Republic

(Case C-90/06)

(2006/C 86/35)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Justice of

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 14
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by António Caeiros and Amparo Alcover,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by María Amparo Alcover San Pedro and
Dr. Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to introduce the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to implement
Commission Directive 2003/73/EC of 24 July 2003
amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC (1) and, in any
event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission,
its obligations
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
under Article 2(1) of that directive;

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

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to
the assessment and management of environmental noise,
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 14(1) of that directive;

— declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform
the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
2002/49 expired on 18 July 2004.

transposition of

the Directive

(1) OJ L 189 of 18.7.2002, p. 12.

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on
25 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 186, 25.07.2003, p. 34.

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-94/06)

(2006/C 86/37)

(Language of the case: German)

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-93/06)

(2006/C 86/36)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the European Communities on 14
the Court of

Justice of

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 14
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by M. Amparo Alcover San Pedro and B.
Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and manage-
ment of environmental noise or, in any event, by failing to
communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the
Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 14(1) of that directive;

C 86/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

domiciled in the same State as the court otherwise be taken
into account in the determination of whether there is such a
risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of Article
6(1)?

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/49 into
national law expired on 18 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-100/06)

(2006/C 86/39)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

to

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative
comply with
provisions necessary
Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003
amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Direc-
tive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household
freezers and their combinations, (1)
electric refrigerators,
and,
in any event, by not informing the Commission of
them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time for complying with Directive 2003/66/EC expired on
30 June 2004.

(1) OJ 2003 L 170, p. 10.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in
Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson

(Case C-98/06)

(2006/C 86/38)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Högsta Domstolen
(Supreme Court), Sweden of 8 February 2006, received at the
Court Registry on 20 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Freeport PLC, London, Great
Britain and Olle Arnoldsson on the following questions:

1. Is an action based on alleged liability in damages for a joint-
stock company as a consequence of a commitment under-
taken to be regarded as being based on contract for the
application of Article 6(1) of the First Brussels Regulation,
even though the party which gave the commitment at the
relevant time was neither a representative nor an agent of
the company?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is it a
precondition for jurisdiction under Article 6(1), in addition
to the conditions expressly laid down therein,
the
action against a defendant domiciled in the same State as
the court was not brought solely in order to have an action
against another defendant heard by a court other than that
which would otherwise have had jurisdiction to hear the
case?

that

3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative: should
the likelihood of success of an action against the party