Case C-126/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos lodged on  3 March 2006 , Carrefour — Marinopoulos v Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Tripoleos
Date: 2006-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bakery, bread, interpretation of the law, market approval, product quality

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