Case C-127/06: Action brought on  3 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, consumer information, consumer protection, contract, distance selling, financial transaction, national implementing measure, provision of services

C 108/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.5.2006

to the proceedings: French Republic, United
Other parties
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European
Parliament and Council of the European Union.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carrefour — Marinopoulos AE

The appellant claim that the Court should:

Defendant: Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Tripoleos

— set aside the judgment of the CFI of 15 December 2005 in
case T-33/01, Infront WM AG v. Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities;

Questions referred

— give final

judgment in the matter by declaring that the

Applicant in Case T-33/01 was inadmissible;

— order the Applicant in Case T-33/01 to pay the costs of the
Commission arising from that case and the present appeal.

(a) Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in
the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’
products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty?

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal concerns
the issues of direct and individual
concern within the meaning of Article 230, fourth paragraph,
EC. The Commission considers that,
in the judgment under
appeal, the Court of First Instance (hereinafter ‘the CFI’) has
erred in law in its interpretation and application of
those
concepts. It has thereby upset the institutional balance which is
reflected in the rules governing access to the Community
courts in order to challenge the validity of a Community act.
The CFI has treated as directly and individually concerned by a
Commission decision an enterprise which could, at the very
most, be considered to have suffered indirect economic damage
as a result of the decision in question, and which has not even
shown the likelihood of such damage. It has accepted as consti-
tuting individual concern elements common to many other
operators finding themselves in situations comparable to that
of the Applicant.

(b) If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does
the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread
pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish
a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the charac-
teristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and
the crust) and its nutritional value
the appearance of
(judgment of
Justice in Case C 325/00
Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek
to protect consumers and public health from any deteriora-
tion in the bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council
of State) 3852/2002)?

the Court of

(c) On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns
both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without
distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that
restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indir-
those
ectly, actually or potentially,
products between Member States?

the free trading of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Tripoleos lodged on 3 March 2006, Carrefour
— Marinopoulos v Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Tripoleos

(Case C-126/06)

(2006/C 108/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-127/06)

(2006/C 108/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Aresu, Agent)

Date lodged: 3 March 2006

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/9

Form of order sought

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance
marketing of consumer financial services and amending
Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and
98/27/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate
those provisions to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
21(1) of that Directive;

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for implementing Directive 2002/65/EC expired
on 9 October 2004.

(1) OJ 2002 L 271, p.16

Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-128/06)

(2006/C 108/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

time-limit

The
expired on 12 October 2004.

for

implementing Directive 2003/124/EC

(1) OJ 2003 L 339, p.70

Appeal brought on 4 March 2006 by Autosalone Ispra Snc
against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2005 in
Case T-250/02 Autosalone Ispra Snc v European Atomic
Energy Community

(Case C-129/06 P)

(2006/C 108/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Autosalone Ispra Snc (represented by: B. Casu, Avvo-
cato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Atomic Energy Com-
munity,
the European
Communities; Agent: E. de March, assisted by A. Dal Ferro,
Avvocato.

represented by the Commission of

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and G. Braun, Agents)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

— Declare that the appeal is admissible

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
to comply with
administrative provisions necessary
Commission Directive 2003/124/EC of 22 December 2003
implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council as regards the definition and
public disclosure of inside information and the definition of
market manipulation (1) and,
in any event, by failing to
communicate them to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities in Case T-250/02

— Order that Case T-250/02 be referred back to the Court of
First Instance so that, once appropriate measures of inquiry
have been made, including those made by the court of its
own motion, such as the taking of expert evidence, on the
spot checks and the hearing of witnesses, the court may
deliver a new judgment granting the forms of order sought
by the appellant in its pleadings in the proceedings at first
instance

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings, including those incurred at first instance