Case C-394/06: Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, common transport policy, exchange of information, report, substitute fuel

C 294/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Action brought on 20 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-391/06)

(2006/C 294/48)

European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002
on the organisation of
the working time of persons
performing mobile road transport activities (1) and, in any
event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission,
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under that directive;

Language of the case: English

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Lawunmi, U. Wölker, Agents)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2002/15/EC expired
on 23 March 2005.

Defendant: Ireland

(1) OJ L 80 of 23.3.2002, p. 35.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council, or in any event by failing to communicate them to
the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the Directive;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 14 February 2005.

Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-394/06)

(2006/C 294/50)

Language of the case: Italian

(1) OJ L 94, P.49

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Action brought on 21 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

(Case C-392/06)

(2006/C 294/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

— declare that, by failing to submit, before 1 July 2005, an
annual national
report on the promotion of biofuels
including all the information laid down in Article 4(1) of
Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council on the promotion of the use of biofuels or
other renewable fuels for transport (1), the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrell and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The period for submitting the annual national report on the
promotion of biofuels referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive
2003/30/EC expired on 1 July 2005.

— declare that, by failing to bring into force the provisions
the
necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of

The Italian Republic maintains that it sent to the Commission a
report in accordance with the requirements of the directive on
14 July 2006.

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/29

In the opinion of the Commission, however, that report is
incomplete because it does not make any reference to the
national resources allocated to the production of biomass for
energy uses other than transport, as laid down in the second
indent of Article 4(1) of the directive.

(1) OJ L 123 of 17.5.2003, p. 42.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
lodged on
Supremo — Sala Primera Civil
22 September 2006 — Entidad de Gestión de los Derechos
de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Al Rima, S.A

(Spain)

(Case C-395/06)

(2006/C 294/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

the first

fixations of

3. For the purposes of protecting the rights of phonogram
producers and producers of
films
pursued by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 22 May 2001, can communica-
tion that
is effected through television sets which are
installed in rooms and to which a signal previously received
by a hotel or similar establishment is fed be regarded as
public because successive viewers have access
to that
communication?

(1) On the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related

rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Land-
sret (Denmark) lodged on 21 September 2006 — Eivind F.
Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S

(Case C-396/06)

(2006/C 294/52)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo — Sala Primera Civil (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Entidad de Gestión de los Derechos de los Produc-
tores Audiovisuales (EGEDA)

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Defendant: Al Rima, S.A

Question(s) referred

1. Does the installation in the rooms of a hotel or similar
establishment of television sets to which a terrestrial or
satellite television signal is sent by cable constitute an act of
communication to the public which is covered by the
harmonisation of national
laws protecting the rights of
phonogram producers and producers of the first fixations of
of Directive
in Article
films
2001/29/EC (1) of
the
Council of 22 May 2001?

for
the European Parliament and of

provided

3(2)

the first

fixations of

2. Is it contrary to the protection of the rights of phonogram
producers and producers of
films
pursued by Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 22 May 2001 to deem the room
of a hotel or similar establishment to be a strictly domestic
location, so that communication by means of television sets
to which is fed a signal previously received by the hotel or
similar establishment is not regarded as communication to
the public?

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eivind F. Kramme

Defendant: SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S

Questions referred

1. Is there an extraordinary circumstance when an aircraft is
taken out of operation due to technical problems, with the
result that a flight is cancelled (see Article 5(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on
compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of
denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights,
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91)?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, which reason-
able measures for the purposes of the Regulation must an
air carrier then take to avoid flight cancellations due to tech-
nical problems?