Case C-417/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez (Appeals — Temporary staff — Article 2(a) of the CEOS — Period completed within the Commission as a national expert on secondment — Application for annulment — Admissibility — Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations — Definition — Measure adversely affecting an official)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, servant (EU), work contract

C 281/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayer-
ischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund
Naturschutz in Bayern eV, Johann Märkl, Ludwig Neumair,
Matthias Maier,
Josef Hörmann, Christine Hörmann,
Albert Hörmann, Maria Rimpfl, Georg Rimpfl, Eva Rimpfl,
Karl Kressierer, Magdelena Kressierer, Anton Wastl,
Amalie Wastl,
Barbara
Graubner-Riedelsheimer,
Westenthanner,
Michael Graubner, Wolfram Graubner, Sylvia Stracke, Eva
Maria Thiel, Friederike Nischwitz, Georg Daller v Freistaat
Bayern

Richard Westenthanner,
Angelika

conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,
requires Member States not to authorise interventions which incur
the risk of seriously compromising the ecological characteristics of
those sites.

2. Member States must, in accordance with the provisions of national
law, take all the measures necessary to avoid interventions which
incur the risk of seriously compromising the ecological characteris-
tics of the sites which appear on the national list transmitted to
the Commission. It is for the national court to assess whether that
is the case.

(Case C-244/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

(Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora — Directive 92/43/EEC — Protection regime before the
inclusion of a habitat in the list of sites of Community
importance)

(2006/C 281/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany

Parties to the main proceedings

Johann Märkl,
Applicants: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern eV,
Ludwig Neumair, Matthias Maier,
Josef Hörmann, Christine
Hörmann, Albert Hörmann, Maria Rimpfl, Georg Rimpfl, Eva
Rimpfl, Karl Kressierer, Magdelena Kressierer, Anton Wastl,
Amalie Wastl, Richard Westenthanner, Barbara Westenthanner,
Angelika Graubner-Riedelsheimer, Michael Graubner, Wolfram
Graubner, Sylvia Stracke, Eva Maria Thiel, Friederike Nischwitz,
Georg Daller

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Direc-
tive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) and
of Article 10(2) of
the EC Treaty — Protection measures
required for sites which could be designated sites of Com-
munity importance, which appear on the national list sent to
the Commission but have not yet been included on the list of
sites adopted by the Commission — Possibility allowed by
national legislation of temporarily prohibiting alteration of the
state of such sites — Route of a motorway

Operative part of the judgment

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez

(Case C-417/05 P) (1)

(Appeals — Temporary staff — Article 2(a) of the CEOS —
Period completed within the Commission as a national expert
on secondment — Application for annulment — Admissi-
bility — Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regula-
tions — Definition — Measure adversely affecting an offi-
cial)

(2006/C 281/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez
(represented by: J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v
Instance
Commission [2005] by which the Court of First
annulled the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude
Contracts of Employment, of 12 May 2003, rejecting the appli-
cation for renewal of the applicant's contract and by which it
ordered the Commission to pay the applicant
the sum of
EUR 50 000 to compensate for the damage suffered.

The Court rules that:

Operative part of the judgment

1. The appropriate protection regime applicable to sites which appear
on a national list transmitted to the Commission, under Article
4(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the

1. The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September
2005 in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v Commission is set
aside;

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/17

2. The action brought by Ms Fernández Gómez before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities for the annulment of
the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of
Employment of 12 May 2003 rejecting the application for
renewal of Ms Fernández Gómez's contract and for compensation
in respect of the damage which allegedly resulted from that deci-
sion is dismissed as inadmissible;

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
laws,
to
comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003
amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive
92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric
refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

3. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs as regards both the

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(1) OJ C 86, 08.04.2006

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 July 2006 — K.D.
Chuck v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekerings-
bank

(Case C-100/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2003/66/EC — Energy labelling of household electric refrig-
erators, freezers and their combinations — Failure to trans-
pose within the prescribed period)

(Case C-331/06)

(2006/C 281/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2006/C 281/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Applicant: K.D. Chuck

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, Agent)

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003
amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive
92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric
refrigerators, freezers and their combinations (OJ 2003 L 170,
p. 10)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Question referred

Where a worker is resident outside the Community on the date
on which he reaches pensionable age, should Article 48 of the
Regulation (1) be applied in the same way as in a case where
the worker concerned is resident in the territory of the Com-
munity?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their
families moving within the Community (English special
edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416).