Case C-396/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 September 2006 — Eivind F. Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic, air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law

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?

C 294/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

3. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, has an air
carrier then taken all reasonable measures to avoid cancella-
tion for the purposes of the Regulation if it can be estab-
lished that there were no aircraft available for use for the
flight in respect of which an aircraft which was taken out of
operation due to technical problems was scheduled to be
used?

Pleas in law and main arguments

in the Netherlands rules that

in order to
The requirement
obtain a residence permit a person must have sufficient means
for a minimum period of one year is not in conformity with
Community law.

4. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is it relevant
that the documentation concerning the technical problems
relied on by the air carrier originates solely from the air
carrier itself?

(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.
(2) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28.
(3) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 485.

Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-398/06)

(2006/C 294/53)

Language of the case: Dutch

the judgment of

Appeal brought on 25 September 2006 by Faraj Hassan
against
Instance
(Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2006 in Case T-
49/04: Faraj Hassan v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities

the Court of First

(Case C-399/06 P)

(2006/C 294/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and R. Troosters, Agents)

Appellant: Faraj Hassan (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, H.
Miller, Solicitor)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union,
Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by maintaining in force national provisions
under which economically non-active and pensioned EU/
EEA nationals must prove that they have lasting means of
support in order to obtain a residence permit, the Kingdom
of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June 1990 on the
right of residence, Council Directive 90/365/EEC (2) of 28
June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-
employed persons who have ceased their occupational
activity and Council Directive 68/360/EEC (3) of 15 October
1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and
residence within the Community for workers of Member
States and their families;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance

2) Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May
2002 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
2049/2003 20 November 2003 (2) and/or Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 20 November 2003 in its
entirety and/or in respect of the proscription of the Appli-
cant; and

3) Alternatively declare the aforementioned Regulations inap-
plicable in respect of its application to the applicant; and

4) Take such further action as the Court may deem appro-

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

priate; and