Case C-260/06, Case C-261/06: References for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) lodged on 15 June 2006 — Daniel Pierre Raymond Escalier and Jean Louis François Bonnarel v Ministère public
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, import, interpretation of the law, market approval, pharmaceutical product, plant health product

C 212/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Appeal brought on 6 June 2006 by Yedas Tarim ve
Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on
30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03: Yedas Tarim ve
Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities

Finally the Applicant submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in its legal assessment that there was no causal
link
between the alleged unlawful conduct of the Community insti-
tution and the alleged damage suffered.

(Case C-255/06 P)

(2006/C 212/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ
(represented by: S. Sariibrahimoglu and R. Sinner, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
in the matter of Yedas v. Commission and

Chamber)
Council (Case T-367/03) in its entirety,

— Refer the case of Yedas back to the Court of First Instance

to review the case,

— Grant an oral procedure,

— Award costs to the Applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
law by failing to give the Association Agreement between
Turkey and the European Economic Community (‘the Ankara
Agreement’) and Protocols any proper legal significance or
effect, contrary to the settled case-law of the European Court of
Justice and by wrongly determining that the principles and
rules contained in the Ankara Agreement and protocols are not
such as to constitute legal norms against which acts of the
Community institutions can be measured. According to the
Applicant the provisions of the Ankara Agreement are directly
applicable and capable of conferring rights upon individuals.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 13 June 2006 —
Roby Profumi Srl v Comune di Parma

(Case C-257/06)

(2006/C 212/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Roby Profumi Srl

Defendant: Comune di Parma

Question referred

Is Article 10(8) of Law No 713/1986, as amended by Article
9(4) of Legislative Decree No 126/1997, compatible with
Article 28 of
the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Directive
76/768/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 93/35/EEC (2)?

(1) OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976.
(2) OJ L 151 of 23.6.1993.

References for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Montpellier (France) lodged on 15 June 2006 — Daniel
Pierre Raymond Escalier and Jean Louis François Bonnarel
v Ministère public

(Case C-260/06 — Case C-261/06)

(2006/C 212/25)

Language of the case: French

The Applicant also submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in law by failing to examine the argument
the
Republic of Turkey was eligible to be treated, in the matter of
assistance, on a par with States such as Spain, Portugal and
Greece and by holding that the Community institutions had no
duty to act with respect to the position of Greece in respect of
allocation of financial support to Turkey.

that

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier

(3rd Criminal Chamber)

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/15

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Cross-appellant: Ministère public

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Appellants: Daniel Pierre Raymond Escalier (C-260/06) and Jean
Louis François Bonnarel (C-261/06)

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Questions referred

Where a Member State makes the importation of a plant
protection product from another Member State in which the
product has already been authorised to be placed on the
market in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC (1) subject to
a simplified procedure for such authorisation in order to verify
that the product imported meets the identity requirements laid
down in Case C-100/96 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd
[1999] ECR I-1499, is that Member State entitled to make an
operator subject to that simplified authorisation procedure if:

— the importer is a farmer who is importing the product
solely for the needs of his own farm, which are manifold
but limited in quantity, and is therefore not placing it on
the market in the commercial sense which that concept
implies;

— the simplified marketing authorisation procedure consti-
tuting import authorisation is personal to each operator/
distributor, who is required to give the product imported its
own brand name and is subject to a charge of EUR 800?

If the reply to the first question is negative, can the judgment
in Case C-212/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-4213
relating to personal imports of medicinal products by indivi-
duals be applied to the case of plant protection products
imported by farmers solely for the needs of their own farms?

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

1. Are

the

first

the European Parliament and of

sentence of Article 27 of Directive
2002/21/EC (1) of
the
the European Parliament and of
Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory frame-
work for electronic communications networks and services
(Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive
2002/22/EC (2) of
the
Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users'
rights relating to electronic communications networks and
services (Universal Service Directive) to be understood as
meaning that a statutory requirement provided for under
earlier national law for the authorisation of charges for the
supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an under-
taking with a dominant position in that market, and hence
an administrative measure confirming that requirement,
should be temporarily maintained?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

2. Does European Community law preclude such extensive

continuation?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.
(2) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2006 —
Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-262/06)

(2006/C 212/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-265/06)

(2006/C 212/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

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

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Defendant: Portuguese Republic