Case C-212/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Konstantinos Adeneler, Pandora Kosa-Valdirka, Nikolaos Markou, Agapi Pantelidou, Christina Topalidou, Apostolos Alexopoulos, Konstantinos Vasiniotis, Vasiliki Karagianni, Apostolos Tsitsionis, Aristidis Andreou, Evangelia Vasila, Kalliopi Peristeri, Spiridon Sklivanitis, Dimosthenis Tselefis, Theopisti Patsidou, Dimitrios Vogiatzis, Rousas Voskakis, Vasilios Giatakis v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG) (Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work — Successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Concepts of successive contracts and objective reasons justifying the renewal of such contracts — Measures intended to prevent abuse — Sanctions — Scope of the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law)
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labour law, temporary employment, work contract

C 212/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: W. Wils and F. Castillo de la
Torre, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas de Andrés and J. Gutiérrez
Gisbert, abogados)

Interveners in support of the defendants: United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent,
and G. Barling QC), Kingdom of Spain (represented by N. Díaz
Abad, L. Fraguas Gadea and F. Díez Moreno, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 4 March 2003 in
Case T-319/99 FENIN v Commission in which the Court
dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellant
against the Commission's decision of 26 August 1999 (SG(99)
D/7.040)
relating to the organisations which manage the
Spanish national health system concerning the conditions for
payment imposed by those organisations on their suppliers of
health products and other allegedly anti-competitive practices
of such organisations — Definition of ‘undertaking’

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Federación Española de Empresas de Tecnología Sani-

taria (FENIN) to pay the costs of these proceedings;

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 184, 02.08.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Council
of the European Union

(Case C-399/03) (1)

(State aid — Existing aid scheme — Tax scheme for coordi-
nation centres established in Belgium — Competence of the
Council)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-
M. Colaert and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003
on the granting of aid by the Belgian Government to certain
coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2003 L 184, p.
17)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2003/531/EC of 16 July 2003 on the
granting of aid by the Belgian Government to certain coordination
centres established in Belgium;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles
Protodikio Thessalonikis — Greece) — Konstantinos
Adeneler, Pandora Kosa-Valdirka, Nikolaos Markou, Agapi
Pantelidou, Christina Topalidou, Apostolos Alexopoulos,
Konstantinos Vasiniotis, Vasiliki Karagianni, Apostolos
Tsitsionis, Aristidis Andreou, Evangelia Vasila, Kalliopi
Peristeri, Spiridon Sklivanitis, Dimosthenis Tselefis, Theo-
pisti Patsidou, Dimitrios Vogiatzis, Rousas Voskakis, Vasi-
lios Giatakis v Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG)

(Case C-212/04) (1)

(Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 1(b) and 5 of the frame-
work agreement on fixed-term work — Successive fixed-term
employment contracts in the public sector — Concepts of
‘successive contracts’ and ‘objective reasons’ justifying the
renewal of such contracts — Measures intended to prevent
abuse — Sanctions — Scope of the obligation to interpret
national law in conformity with Community law)

(2006/C 212/03)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 212/04)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Referring court

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet, V. Di Bucci and R. Lyal, Agents)

Monomeles Protodikio Thessalonikis

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Konstantinos Adeneler, Pandora Kosa-Valdirka, Niko-
laos Markou, Agapi Pantelidou, Christina Topalidou, Apostolos
Alexopoulos, Konstantinos Vasiniotis, Vasiliki Karagianni,
Apostolos Tsitsionis, Aristidis Andreou, Evangelia Vasila,
Kalliopi Peristeri, Spiridon Sklivanitis, Dimosthenis Tselefis,
Theopisti Patsidou, Dimitrios Vogiatzis, Rousas Voskakis, Vasi-
lios Giatakis

Defendant: Ellinikos Organismos Galaktos (ELOG)

public sector alone, prohibits absolutely the conversion into an
indefinite duration of a succession of
employment contract of
fixed-term contracts that,
in fact, have been intended to cover
‘fixed and permanent needs’ of the employer and must therefore be
regarded as constituting an abuse.

4. Where a directive is transposed belatedly into a Member State's
domestic law and the relevant provisions of the directive do not
have direct effect,
the national courts are bound to interpret
domestic law so far as possible, once the period for transposition
has expired, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the
directive concerned with a view to achieving the results sought by
the directive,
the national rules
which is the most consistent with that purpose in order thereby to
achieve an outcome compatible with the provisions of the directive.

favouring the interpretation of

Re:

(1) OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikio
Thessalonikis — Interpretation of clause 5(1) and (2) of the
annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999
concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work
concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43)
— Employment contracts concluded with the public authorities
— ‘Objective reasons’ justifying unlimited renewal of successive
fixed-term contracts — ‘Successive contracts’

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 June 2006
the European
— SGL Carbon AG v Commission of

Communities

Operative part of the judgment

(Case C-308/04 P) (1)

1. Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work
concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council
Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the frame-
work agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE
and CEEP, is to be interpreted as precluding the use of successive
fixed-term employment contracts where the justification advanced
for their use is solely that it is provided for by a general provision
of statute or secondary legislation of a Member State. On the
contrary, the concept of ‘objective reasons’ within the meaning of
that clause requires recourse to this particular type of employment
relationship, as provided for by national legislation, to be justified
by the presence of specific factors relating in particular to the
activity in question and the conditions under which it is carried
out.

2. Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work is to be
interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in
the main proceedings, under which only fixed-term employment
contracts or relationships that are not separated from one another
by a period of
time longer than 20 working days are to be
regarded as ‘successive’ within the meaning of that clause.

3. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the frame-
to be interpreted as
work agreement on fixed-term work is
meaning that,
in so far as domestic law of the Member State
concerned does not include, in the sector under consideration, any
other effective measure to prevent and, where relevant, punish the
misuse of successive fixed-term contracts, that framework agree-
ment precludes the application of national legislation which, in the

(Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and
concerted practices — Graphite electrodes — Article 81(1)
EC — Fines — Guidelines on the method of setting fines —
Leniency Notice — Principle of non bis in idem)

(2006/C 212/05)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by M. Klusmann and K.
Beckmann, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, (represented by A. Bouquet, H. Gading and M.
Schneider, Agents), Tokai Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo
(Japan), Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo, Showa
Denko KK, established in Tokyo, GrafTech International Ltd,
formerly UCAR International Inc., established in Wilmington
(United States), SEC Corp., established in Amagasaki (Japan),
The Carbide/Graphite Group Inc., established in Pittsburgh
(United States)