Case C-100/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, energy consumption, energy saving, harmonisation of standards, household electrical appliance, labelling, national implementing measure, noise level

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