Case C-174/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Natuur en Milieu v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Authorisation to place plant protection products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC — Article 8 — Active substance named  aldicarb  — Validity of Article 2(3) of Decision 2003/199/EC)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labelling, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product, plant health legislation, plant health product

C 131/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Re:

framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation
(OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Counseil d'Etat (France)
— Interpretation of Article 9(2) of the Sixth Council Directive
77/388 of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
1977 L 145, p. 1) — Determination of relevant place for tax
purposes — Supply of services carried out in relation to boat
shows.

Operative part of the judgment

first

The
indent of Article 9(2)(c) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as
meaning that an inclusive service provided by an organiser to exhibi-
tors at a fair or in an exhibition hall falls within the category of
services referred to in that provision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply, at federal level, with
the provisions on discrimination based on disability,
in Council
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion and, at Länder level, with the exception of the Länder of
Vienna and Lower-Austria, to all the provision of that directive,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

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

(1) OJ C 115,14.05.2005.

(1) OJ C 143 of 11.06.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Republic of Austria

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven) — Stichting Zuid-
Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting Natuur en Milieu v
College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

(Case C-133/05) (1)

(Case C-174/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and
occupation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(Authorisation to place plant protection products on the
market — Directive 91/414/EEC — Article 8 — Active
substance named ‘aldicarb’ — Validity of Article 2(3) of
Decision 2003/199/EC)

(2006/C 131/46)

Language of the case: German

(2006/C 131/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Referring court

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer,
acting as Agent)

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
have transposed, within the prescribed period, Council Direc-
tive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general

Applicants: Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, Stichting
Natuur en Milieu

Defendant: College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

Joined party: Bayer CropScience BV

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?