Case C-201/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import licence, import restriction, intra-EU trade, plant health product

C 165/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Form of order sought

sector (2) and in the light of the principles of proportionality
and non-discrimination?

— Declare that, by failing to draw up or,

in any event, to
transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive
1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of
consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions
in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars (1), the
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 9 of that directive;

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was required to transmit to
the Commission, no later than 31 December 2003, a report on
the effectiveness of the provisions of the directive, covering the
period from 18 January 2001 to 31 December 2002.

(1) OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Première Instance de Bruxelles lodged on 4 May 2006 —
Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v Bureau d'Intervention et de
Restitution Belge (BIRB)

(Case C-200/06)

(2006/C 165/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

2) Do

Commission

Nos
1993/2001 (6)

Regulations
1837/2002 (5),

1775/2004 (3),
1762/2003 (4),
and
2267/2000 (7) lay down a production levy for sugar calcu-
lated on the basis of the ‘average loss’ per tonne exported,
which does not take into account the quantities exported
without a refund, although these quantities are included in
the total used to evaluate the overall loss to be financed?
Are these Regulations invalid in the light of Commission
Regulation No 314/2002, Article 15 of Council Regulation
No 1260/2001 and the principle of proportionality?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002
laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system
in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L
178, p. 1)

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004
setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04
marketing year (OJ 2004 L 316, p. 64)

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003
fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03
marketing year (OJ 2003 L 254, p. 4)

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002
fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional
levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 (OJ 2002 L
278, p. 13)

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001
fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/01
marketing year (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 15)

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000
fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the
additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing
year (OJ 2000 L 259, p. 29)

Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-201/06)

(2006/C 165/29)

Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Bureau d'Intervention et de Restitution Belge (BIRB)

Questions referred

Parties

1) Does Commission Regulation 314/2002 (1) provide, with
regard to calculation of the production levy, for exclusion
sugar
from the financing needs of
exported
contained in processed products which are
without export refunds? Is this legislation invalid in the light
of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on
the markets in the sugar
the common organisation of

the quantities of

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/17

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Declare that, by requiring that a parallel

imported plant
protection product and a reference product have a common
origin, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 28 EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Article 307 of the EC Treaty requires the Member States to
take all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities
established with the EC Treaty of the agreements concluded by
them prior to 1 January 1958 or before accession to the Euro-
pean Community.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In France, the grant and continuation of an import authorisa-
tion in respect of parallel imports of plant protection products
from another Member State where they are lawfully placed on
the market are subject to the requirement that parallel imported
plant protection products and reference products have a
common origin.

This constitutes a restriction on the free movement of plant
protection products that is incompatible with Article 28 EC, is
not justified on grounds of the protection of public health,
animal health or the environment and is disproportionate in
relation to the goal to be achieved.

The Commission considers that
the provisions on the free
transfer of investment related payments in the bilateral invest-
ment agreements which the Republic of Austria concluded
with Korea, Cape Verde, China, Malaysia, the Russian Federa-
tion and Turkey before its accession to the European Com-
munity are incompatible with the EC Treaty. This is because
they do not allow the Republic of Austria to apply restrictions
on capital or payments which the Council of the European
Union may adopt on the basis of Articles 57(2), 59 and 60(1)
of the EC Treaty.

The Austrian Government's argument that the way in which it
votes in the Council is not predetermined by the agreements is
irrelevant. The only relevant issue is whether the Republic of
Austria can carry out — in conformity with its obligations
under international law — the restrictive measures in a particu-
lar case. The provisions of the Austrian investment agreements
in dispute show that this is not the case. Likewise, the argu-
ment
from
adopting a decision by a qualified majority is not decisive for
the same reason.

that Austria alone cannot prevent

the Council

Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-205/06)

(2006/C 165/30)

Language of the case: German

Since,
in the present case, an incompatibility with the EC
Treaty exists, Austria is under an obligation to take appropriate
steps to eliminate it. If no other means are available, however,
Austria could — according to the case-law of the Court of
Justice — be obliged to abrogate the agreement at issue.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and B. Martenczuk, acting as Agents)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi
Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged) lodged on 5 May 2006
— CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

(Case C-210/06)

(2006/C 165/31)

Language of the case: Hungarian

— declare that, by not taking suitable measures to eliminate
incompatibilities in relation to the provisions concerning
transfers in the bilateral investment agreements with Korea,
Cape Verde, China, Malaysia, the Russian Federation and
Turkey, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under second paragraph of Article 307 of the EC
Treaty;

Referring court

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged)