Case C-354/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, gas industry, single market

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/11

Defendant:
Agent, and by M.G. Aiello, lawyer)

Italian Republic (represented by:

I.M. Braguglia,

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2003/87/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October
2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allow-
ance trading within the Community and amending Council
Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p.32)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community
and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.05.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Reinhold
Haug v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-286/05) (1)

(Protection of the European Communities' financial interests
— Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Repayment of
Community aid — Retroactive application of less severe
administrative penalties)

(2006/C 165/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reinhold Haug

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Administrative Court) Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of
Arts. 2(2), second sentence, 4(1) and (4) and 5(1) of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995
on the protection of the European Communities' financial inter-
ests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) and Article 31(3) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying
down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes estab-
lished by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001
L 327, p. 11) — Retroactive application of a less strict provi-
sion — Meaning of ‘administrative measure’ and ‘administrative
penalty’ — Repayment of area aid unduly received

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of
interests does not apply if, a
the European Communities' financial
difference of more than 20 % of
the determined area within the
meaning of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes having been found, full repayment of the Community aid
initially granted,
the
economic operator concerned contends that the amount of the aid to
be repaid might be lower under Article 31(3) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down
detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control
system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92.

together with interest,

sought whereas

is

(1) OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Grand-
Commission of
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-354/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas)

(2006/C 165/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Heller and B.Schima, agents)

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

C 165/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules
for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive
98/30/EC (OJ L 176, p. 57)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gerichts Wien lodged on 7 April 2006 — Renate Ilsinger v
Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of
Schlank & Schick GmbH)

(Case C-180/06)

(2006/C 165/21)

Language of the case: German

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market
in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Grand-
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Applicant: Renate Ilsinger

(1) OJ C 281 of 12.11.2005.

Defendant: Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of
Schlank & Schick GmbH)

Questions referred

Appeal brought on 21 March 2005 by Theodoros Papou-
lakos against the order of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) made on 26 November 2001 in Case T-248/01
Theodoros Papoulakos v Italian Republic and Commission
of the European Communities

(Case C-215/05 P)

(2006/C 165/20)

Language of the case: Greek

1. Does the provision in Paragraph 5j of

selling), BGBl

the Konsumen-
tenschutzgesetz (Law on consumer protection; KSchG),
in the version of Art I, para. 2 of the
BGBl 1979/140,
Fernabsatz-Gesetz
I
(Law on distance
1999/185, which entitles certain consumers to claim from
undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won by them
where the undertakings send (or have sent) them prize noti-
fications or other similar communications worded so as to
give the impression that they have won a particular prize,
constitute, in circumstances where the claiming of that prize
was not made conditional upon actually ordering goods or
placing a trial order and where no goods were actually
ordered but the recipient of the communication is neverthe-
less seeking to claim the prize, for the purposes of Council
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters (‘the regulation’ (1) a
contractual, or equivalent, claim under Article 15(1)(c) of
the regulation?

Parties

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative:

Appellant: Theodoros Papoulakos (represented by: D. Koutou-
valis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic and Commission
of the European Communities

2. Does a claim falling under Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation
arise if the claim for payment of the prize was not made
conditional upon ordering goods but the recipient of the
communication has actually placed an order for goods?

By order of 2 February 2006, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber)
dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.

(1) OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001, p. 1.