Case C-227/06: Action brought on  17 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, building materials, marketing restriction, marketing standard

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/21

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

Action brought on 17 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive expired on 1 January
2005.

(Case C-226/06)

(2006/C 165/39)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ L 178, p. 16.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

(Case C-224/06)

(2006/C 165/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Braun and J.R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by failing to adopt the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 2004/72/EC (1) of 29
April 2004 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC (2) of the
European Parliament and of the Council as regards accepted
market practices, the definition of inside information in
relation to derivatives on commodities, the drawing up of
lists of insiders, the notification of managers' transactions
and the notification of suspicious transactions and, in any
event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit prescribed for the implementation in national
law of Directive 2004/72/EC expired on 12 October 2004.

(1) OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p. 70.
(2) OJ L 96, 12.4.2003, p. 16.

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles
2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC
of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encou-
rage improvements in the safety and health of workers at
work (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive and Articles 10 EC and 249 EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 89/391/EEC expired on
31 December 1992.

The Commission complains that the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 10(1) and 12(3) and (4)
of Directive 83/391 by failing to adopt all the provisions neces-
sary to transpose the directive correctly into French law.

(1) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-227/06)

(2006/C 165/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

C 165/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare that, by introducing a de facto obligation on
economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construc-
tion products legally produced and/or marketed in another
Member State of the European Union to obtain ‘BENOR’ or
‘ATG’ marks denoting conformity for the marketing of
these products in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

issue can be classified as State
The national measures at
measures impeding free movement of goods not justified by
considerations laid down in Article 30 EC or by imperative
requirements of public interest and not satisfying the principle
of proportionality.

Article 16 of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that, in the
event that no compensation is paid, no re-routing offered or no
right to reimbursement granted, sanctions are to be imposed
on airlines. The sanctions laid down by the Member States for
infringements of the regulation must be effective, proportionate
and dissuasive.

According to the information available to the Commission,
laid down effective, proportionate and
Austria has not yet
dissuasive sanctions for infringements of the regulation.

(1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.2004, p. 1.

Action brought on 24 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 24 May 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-235/06)

(2006/C 165/41)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-236/06)

(2006/C 165/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Braun and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to lay down sanctions within the
meaning of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February
2004 establishing common rules on compensation and
assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding
and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market
manipulation (market abuse) (1) and, in any event, by failing
the Grand-
to communicate them to the Commission,
its obligations
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
under that directive;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

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