Case C-198/06: Action brought on  2 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, combustion gases, consumer information, energy consumption, exchange of information, motor fuel, motor vehicle pollution, report

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
van Koophandel te Hasselt (Belgium) lodged on 3 May
2006 — Confederatie van Immobilien-Beroepen van Belgie
VZW and het Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars v
Willem Van Leuken

(Case C-197/06)

(2006/C 165/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Confederatie van Immobilien-Beroepen van Belgie
VZW and het Beroepsinstituut van Vastgoedmakelaars

Defendant: Willem Van Leuken

Question(s) referred

(a) Must Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48/EEC (1) be inter-
preted as meaning that a real estate agent who is estab-
lished in the Netherlands and organises agency activities in
Belgium in respect of real property is no longer obliged to
comply with the conditions laid down by the Belgian legis-
lature pursuant to the aforementioned directive (Article 2
of the Royal Decree of 6 September 1993, Article 3 of the
Framework Law of 1 March 1976) in the case where he
has concluded a cooperation agreement with a real estate
agent who is established in Belgium and is certified by the
Belgian Professional Association of Real Estate Agents (BIV)
and organises his activities in such a way that (i) consumers
may always have recourse to this real estate agent registered
in Belgium for purposes of activities in Belgium and (ii) this
collaboration is made clear
in particular
through reference to the intermediary role played by this
real estate agent certified in Belgium by the BIV in connec-
tion with activities carried out pursuant to Belgian law?;

in publicity,

intermediary services

that a real estate agent who is established in the Nether-
lands and organises agency activities in Belgium in respect
of real property is in every case obliged to comply with the
conditions laid down by the Belgian legislature pursuant to
the aforementioned directive (Article 2 of the Royal Decree
of 6 September 1993, Article 3 of the Framework Law of
1 March 1976), notwithstanding any cooperation agreement
with a real estate agent who is certified in Belgium and
in regard to activities
provides
governed by Belgian law, does it not then follow that that
directive and the national provisions adopted to implement
it are contrary to Article 49 EC setting out the principle of
freedom to provide cross-border services inasmuch as, on
the basis of the foregoing construction, that directive and
the national provisions adopted to implement it protect the
market for estate agency activity in respect of real property
situate in Belgium, in a manner which is objectionable, arti-
ficial and lacking objective justification, against cooperation
agreements entered into by independent real estate agents
established in different Member States (Belgium and the
Netherlands), at least one of whom (the Belgian real estate
agent) satisfies the conditions laid down by the directive
and the national provisions, with the result that the require-
ment that the Netherlands real estate agent must addition-
ally also satisfy those conditions (as set out in the directive
and the national provisions)
to indirect
discrimination on grounds of nationality and constitutes at
the very least a prohibited non-discriminatory restriction?

is tantamount

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
on completion of professional education and training of at least
three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p.16).

Action brought on 2 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-198/06)

(2006/C 165/27)

or

Language of the case: French

Must Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 89/48/EEC be inter-
preted as meaning that a real estate agent who is estab-
lished in the Netherlands and organises agency activities in
Belgium in respect of real property is in every case obliged to
comply with the conditions laid down by the Belgian legis-
lature pursuant to the aforementioned directive (Article 2
of the Royal Decree of 6 September 1993, Article 3 of the
Framework Law of 1 March 1976), notwithstanding any
cooperation agreement with a real estate agent who is certi-
fied in Belgium and provides intermediary services in
regard to activities governed by Belgian law?

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, Agents)

(b) Should the Court of Justice take the view that Articles 3
and 4 of Directive 89/48 must be interpreted as meaning

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

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