Case C-298/06: Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal breeding, cattle, health control, import, intra-EU trade, national implementing measure

C 237/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it contrary to
Article 52, in conjunction with Article 58, of the EC Treaty
(now Article 43 EC, in conjunction with Article 48 EC) if
the currency loss mentioned above is to be included in the
basis for assessment of the German tax but may be deducted
as operating expenditure only in so far as no tax-free profits
are achieved by the Italian establishment?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 30 June
2006 — The Queen on the application of Ezgi Payir,
Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the
Home Department

(Case C-294/06)

(2006/C 237/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Questions referred

1. In a case in which:

a) a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United
Kingdom for two years in order to take up a placement
in that country as an 'au pair' as defined in the United
Kingdom Immigration Rules; and

b) her leave to enter included permission to be employed in

that capacity; and

c) she was continuously employed in that capacity by the
same employer for a period exceeding one year during
her leave to enter; and

(i) a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision
No 1/80 of the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the Community
and Turkey?

(ii) duly registered as belonging to the labour force of
the United Kingdom within the meaning of
that
Article?

2. In a case in which:

a) a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the United
Kingdom under its Immigration Rules in order to follow
a course of study in that country; and

b) his leave to enter included permission to be employed in
any occupation with a limit during term time of 20
hours work per week; and

c) he was continuously employed by the same employer for
a period exceeding one year during his leave to enter;

d) that employment was a genuine and effective economic

activity; and

e) that employment was in accordance with national laws

relating to employment and immigration;

then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that
employment:

(i) a worker within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision
No 1/80 of the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the Community
and Turkey?

(ii) duly registered as belonging to the labour force of
the United Kingdom within the meaning of
that
Article?

Action brought on 4 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-298/06)

(2006/C 237/08)

Language of the case: Greek

d) that employment was a genuine and effective economic

activity; and

Parties

e) that employment was in accordance with national laws

relating to employment and immigration;

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and I Khatzigiannis)

then, was the Turkish national concerned, during that
employment:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/5

Form of order sought

— Order the Council of the European Union and the European

Parliament to pay the costs.

— declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not noti-
fying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with Council Direc-
tive 2003/43/EC (1) of 26 May 2003 amending Directive
88/407/EEC laying down the animal health requirements
applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of
semen of domestic animals of
the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

the bovine species,

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic
law expired on 1 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 143, 11.6.2003, p. 23.

Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Ireland v Council of the
European Union, European Parliament

(Case C-301/06)

(2006/C 237/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, E. Fitzsi-
mons SC, D. Barniville BL)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Parlia-
ment

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of
data generated or processed in connection with the provi-
communications
sion of publicly available
services or of public
and
amending Directive 2002/58/EC (1) on the grounds that it
was not adopted on an appropriate legal basis.

communications networks

electronic

Pleas in law and main arguments

Ireland submits that the choice of Article 95 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community (‘TEC’) as the legal basis
for Directive 2006/24/EC (‘the Directive’)
is fundamentally
flawed. Ireland further submits that neither Article 95 TEC nor
any other provision of the TEC can provide a proper legal basis
for the Directive. It is primarily Ireland's case that the sole or,
alternatively, the main or predominant purpose of the Directive
is to facilitate the investigation, detection and prosecution of
serious crime, including terrorism. In those circumstances, it is
Ireland's contention that the only permissible legal base for the
measures contained in the Directive is Title VI of the Treaty on
European Union (‘TEU’), in particular Articles 30, 31(1)(c) and
34(2)(b).

its submissions,

In support of
Ireland has indicated that a
consideration of the recitals to and the fundamental provisions
of
the Directive unquestionably demonstrates that reliance
upon Article 95 TEC as the legal basis for the Directive is
wholly inappropriate and unsustainable. In that regard, it has
pointed out that the Directive is clearly and unambiguously
directed towards the fight against serious crime. Accordingly,
Ireland submits that this constitutes the main or predominant
purpose of the Directive and, indeed, its sole objective.

It is established that measures based upon Article 95 TEC must
have as their ‘centre of gravity’ the approximation of national
laws to benefit the functioning of the internal market. The
provisions of
the Directive are concerned with combating
serious crime and are not intended to address any defects in
the internal market.

While a defect arising from differences of national
been asserted, it has not been established.

laws has

In the alternative, even if, contrary to Ireland's fundamental
submission, the Directive does have as one of its objectives the
prevention of distortions or obstacles to the internal market,
Ireland submits that this objective must be regarded as being
purely incidental
in character to the demonstrated main or
predominant objective of the fight against crime.

(1) OJ L 105, p. 54