Case C-467/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Málaga — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against G. Francesco Gasparini, José M a L.A. Gasparini, G. Costa Bozzo, Juan de Lucchi Calcagno, Francesco Mario Gasparini, José A. Hormiga Marrero, Sindicatura Quiebra (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Acquittal of the accused because their prosecution for the offence is time-barred)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, criminal court, free circulation, illicit trade, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, limitation of legal proceedings, offence

C 294/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

National rules whereby a Member State makes the granting of credit
on a commercial basis, on national territory, by a company estab-
lished in a non-member country subject to prior authorisation, and
which provide that such authorisation must be refused, in particular,
if that company does not have its central administration or a branch
in that territory, affect primarily the exercise of the freedom to provide
services within the meaning of Article 49 EC et seq. A company
established in a non-member country cannot rely on those provisions.

(1) OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audi-
encia Provincial de Málaga — Spain) — Criminal proceed-
ings against G. Francesco Gasparini, José Ma L.A. Gasparini,
G. Costa Bozzo, Juan de Lucchi Calcagno, Francesco Mario
Gasparini, José A. Hormiga Marrero, Sindicatura Quiebra

1. The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of

the
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June
1985 between the Governments of
the Benelux
Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French
Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at
their common
borders, signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990, applies in respect
of a decision of a court of a Contracting State, made after criminal
proceedings have been brought, by which the accused is acquitted
finally because prosecution of the offence is time-barred.

the States of

2. That principle does not apply to persons other than those whose

trial has been finally disposed of in a Contracting State.

3. A criminal court of a Contracting State cannot hold goods to be
in free circulation in national territory solely because a criminal
court of another Contracting State has found, in relation to the
same goods, that prosecution for the offence of smuggling is time-
barred.

4. The marketing of goods in another Member State, after their
importation into the Member State where
the accused was
acquitted, constitutes conduct which may form part of the ‘same
acts’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention.

(Case C-467/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement —
Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Acquittal
of the accused because their prosecution for the offence is
time-barred)

(2006/C 294/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Málaga

Parties in the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
(United
Appeal

(England and Wales)

(Civil Division)

Kingdom)) — B.F. Cadman v Health & Safety Executive

(Case C-17/05) (1)

(Social policy — Article 141 EC — Principle of equal pay for
men and women — Length of service as a determinant of pay
— Objective justification — Burden of proof)

(2006/C 294/17)

Language of the case: English

G. Francesco Gasparini, José Ma L.A. Gasparini, G. Costa Bozzo,
Juan de Lucchi Calcagno, Francesco Mario Gasparini, José A.
Hormiga Marrero, Sindicatura Quiebra

Re:

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de
Málaga — Interpretation of Article 54 of
the Convention
implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985
between the Governments of
the Benelux
Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the
French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their
common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem
principle — Scope — Interpretation of Article 24 EC — Scope

the States of

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: B.F. Cadman

Respondent: Health & Safety Executive

Intervener: Equal Opportunities Commission