Case C-138/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands ) — Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Authorisation for the placing of plant protection and biocidal products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC — Article 8 — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 16 — Power of Member States during the transitional period)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, market approval, plant health control, plant health legislation, plant health product

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/13

Re:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and
M. Apessos, Agents)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht München
— Interpretation of Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of
taxes —
the Member States relating to turnover
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Taxable amount of supply of
service consisting of use of part of a building forming, in its
entirety, part of the assets of a business for the private use of
the taxable person — Definition of ‘full cost’ to the taxable
person

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(A)(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive
95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, is to be interpreted as meaning that it
does not preclude the taxable amount for VAT in respect of the
private use of part of a building treated by a taxable person as
forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business from being
fixed at a portion of the acquisition or construction costs of the
building, established in accordance with the length of the period for
adjustment of deductions concerning VAT provided for in Article 20
of that directive.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 28 EC — National legislation considering the ‘bake-
off’ process (thawing and reheating of pre-baked and frozen
bread) to be a process of manufacturing bread and allowing
only bakeries to sell bread manufactured in that way.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by treating the process of final baking or reheating
of ‘bake-off’ products in the same way as the full process of manu-
facturing bread and by making it
to the conditions
prescribed by the national legislation with regard to bakeries, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
28 EC.

subject

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

That taxable amount must include the costs of acquiring the land on
which the building is constructed when that acquisition has been
subject to VAT and the taxable person has deducted that tax.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.04.2005

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Hellenic Republic

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College
van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands ) —
Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-82/05) (1)

(Case C-138/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free move-
ment of goods — Article 28 EC — Quantitative restrictions
— Measures having equivalent effect — Marketing of frozen
bakery products)

(Authorisation for
the placing of plant protection and
biocidal products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC —
Article 8 — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 16 — Power of
Member States during the transitional period)

(2006/C 281/20)

Language of the case: Greek

(2006/C 281/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Referring court

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

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

C 281/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie

(Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet), as amended by the Law of 6 February
2003, corresponds to all the characteristics of a ‘review’ within the
meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, in particular those
referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the present judgment.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Intervener: LTO Nederland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 4, 8(2) and (3)
and 23 of 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) — Interpretation of Article 16 of
Directive 98/8/EC of
the
Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of
biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Prior
authorisation of placing on the market — Period prescribed for
transposition elapsed — Application by the national court —
Authorisation for placing on the market products already there
two years after the directive was notified — Re-examination of
the products

the European Parliament and of

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
of biocidal products on the market has the same meaning as
Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

2. Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 does not constitute a ‘standstill’
obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 91/414,
require that during the transitional period prescribed in Article
8(2) of that directive the Member States refrain from adopting
any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed
by that directive. More specifically, Member States may not,
during that transitional period, amend the legislation applicable in
such a manner as to allow themselves to authorise a plant protec-
that provision,
tion product which comes within the scope of
without duly considering the effects which that product might have
on human and animal health and on the environment. Likewise, a
decision relating to an authorisation may be taken only on the
basis of a dossier comprising all necessary information enabling a
genuine assessment of those effects to be made.

3. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as
meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the
market on its territory of plant protection products containing
active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that
were already on the market two years after the date of notification
of the directive, it is not required to comply with the provisions of
Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.

4. It is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation carried
out pursuant to Article 16aa of the Law on pesticides of 1962

5. Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as meaning
that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data
prior to a review.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-193/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom
of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the
profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State
other than that in which the qualification was obtained —
Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host
Member State — Prohibition on being a person authorised to
accept service (domiciliataire) on behalf of companies —
Requirement to produce each year the certificate of registra-
tion with the competent authority of the home Member State)

(2006/C 281/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and A. Bordes, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by:
S. Schreiner, Agent, and L. Dupong, avocat,)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate
practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Member State other than that in which the qualification was
obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Language testing — Prohibi-
tion on being a person authorised to accept service on behalf
of companies — Obligation to reproduce each year the certifi-
cate from the home Member State.