Case C-310/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  9 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/95/EC — General product safety — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, consumer protection, marketing, product safety

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/27

Re:

and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product
safety (OJ L 11, p. 4)

Preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
— Validity of Article 2(3) of Council Decision 2003/199/EC of
18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of aldicarb in
Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal
of authorisations for plant protection products containing this
active substance (OJ 2003 L 76, p. 21)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has not disclosed any factor of
such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2(3) of Council Deci-
sion 2003/199/EC of 18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion
of aldicarb in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing
this active substance.

(1) OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3
December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1)
of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243 of 01.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand-
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-310/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2001/95/EC — General product safety — Failure to
transpose within the prescribed period)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Landessozialgericht lodged on 3 February 2006 — Grete
Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern

(Case C-60/06)

(2006/C 131/49)

Language of the case: German

(2006/C 131/48)

Referring court

Language of the case: French

Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Bavarian Higher Social Court)
(Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M.-J. Jonczy and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, acting as Agent)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grete Schlepps

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern (German
Pension Insurance Scheme, Upper Bavaria)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament

Questions referred

1. Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of
Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted
as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the benefit on
1 January 1994 — also the taking up of residence in
Austria?