Case C-122/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  18 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, tradeable emission permit

C 165/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — Friesland Coberco Dairy
Foods BV, trading as Friesland Supply Point Ede v Inspec-
de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor
teur

van

Groningen

(Case C-11/05) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Arrangements for processing
under customs control — Refusal by the national customs
authorities of an application for authorisation for processing
under customs control — Binding nature of the conclusions
of the Customs Code Committee — None — Jurisdiction of
the Court to rule on the validity of those conclusions in the
context of Article 234 EC — None — Interpretation of
Article 133(e) of the Customs Code — Interpretation of Arti-
cles 502(3) and 504(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 —
Overall assessment of all the circumstances of the application
for authorisation)

(2006/C 165/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 November 2000, account must be taken not only of the
market for the finished products but also of the economic situation
of
the raw materials used to produce those
products.

the market

for

the

2. The criteria to be taken into consideration when assessing ‘proces-
sing activities to be created or maintained’ within the meaning of
Article 133(e) of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2700/2000, and Article 502(3) of Commission Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No
for
2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
993/2001 of 4 May 2001, may include the criterion relating to
the creation of a minimum number of jobs on account of the
processing activities envisaged, but is not limited to that criterion.
the processing activity
Those criteria depend on the nature of
concerned, and the national customs authority responsible for
examining the economic conditions under those provisions must
make an overall assessment of all the relevant factors, including
jobs created, the value of the
those concerning the number of
investment made and the permanence of the activity envisaged.

3. The validity of conclusions of the Customs Code Committee issued
in accordance with Article 133(e) of Regulation No 2913/92, as
amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, cannot be examined
within the framework of Article 234 EC.

4. The Customs Code Committee's conclusion is not binding on
national customs authorities when they are determining an appli-
cation for authorisation for processing under customs control.

Applicant: Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV, trading as Fries-
land Supply Point Ede

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

Defendant:
kantoor Groningen

Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/

Re:

for

a preliminary

ruling — Gerechtshof

Reference
te
Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 133(e) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.1) — Meaning
of ‘without adversely affecting the essential interests of Com-
(economic situation) —
munity producers of similar goods’
Arrangements for processing under customs control — Inter-
pretation of Articles 502(3), 504(4) and 552 of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 2003 laying down
provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p.1), as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 993/2001 (OJ 2001 L 141, p.1), and of Annex 76, Part B,
thereto — Authorisation –Committee's conclusions — Assess-
ment by the Court of Justice — Jurisdiction

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2006 —
the European Communities v Italian
Commission of

Republic

(Case C-122/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allow-
ance trading — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2006/C 165/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Parties

1. In the assessment of an application for authorisation for proces-
sing under customs control pursuant to Article 133(e) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U.Wölker and D. Recchia, Agents)

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)