Case C-232/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid granted to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark — Obligation of recovery — Non-execution owing to the application of a national procedure — National procedural autonomy — Limits — National procedure allowing immediate and effective execution for the purposes of Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — National procedure providing that actions brought against demands for payment issued by national authorities have suspensory effect)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, administrative cooperation, control of State aid, discount sale, industrial plot, infringement of EU law, redemption

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/15

— punishable acts consisting of exporting and of importing the
same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in different
Contracting States party to that Convention are, in principle,
to be regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54
of the Convention, the definitive assessment in that respect
being the task of the competent national courts.

2. The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of that
Convention, falls to be applied in respect of a decision of the judi-
cial authorities of a Contracting State by which the accused is
acquitted finally for lack of evidence.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.06.2005.

supplies and explosives and the legislation of the Land Salz-
burg on electricity;

— Article 11 of Directive 96/82 in the Länder of Salzburg,

Styria and Tirol;

— Article 12 of Directive 96/82 in the Land of Upper Austria;

and

— Article 8(2)(b) of Directive 96/82 in the Länder of Upper

Austria, Salzburg and Tirol,

the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

2. Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Republic
of Austria

(Case C-226/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
96/82/EC — Major-accident hazards involving dangerous
to transpose within the period
substances — Failure
prescribed)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v French
Republic

(2006/C 294/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure fully to
transpose Articles 8(2)(b), 11, 12 and 24(1) of Council Direc-
tive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-
accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L
10, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Fifth Chamber):

(Case C-232/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid
— Aid granted to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark — Obliga-
tion of recovery — Non-execution owing to the application of
a national procedure — National procedural autonomy —
Limits — ‘National procedure allowing immediate and effec-
tive execution’ for the purposes of Article 14(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 659/1999 — National procedure providing
that actions brought against demands for payment issued by
national authorities have suspensory effect)

(2006/C 294/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
S. Ramet, Agents)

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose, within the period prescribed:

Re:

— the provisions of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December
1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving
dangerous substances into the national legislation on blasting

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
execute within the prescribed period Commission Decision
2002/14/EC of 12 July 2000 on the State aid granted by
France to Scott Paper SA/Kimberly-Clark (OJ 2002 L 12, p. 1)

C 294/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed period all
the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary the aid
referred to in Commission Decision 2002/14/EC of 12 July
2000 on the State aid granted by France to Scott Paper SA/
Kimberly-Clark, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles
2 and 3 of that decision;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agree-
ment of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States 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 on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, is to be interpreted as
meaning that the term ‘first entry’ in that provision refers, besides the
very first entry into the territories of the Contracting States to that
agreement, to the first entry into those territories taking place after the
expiry of a period of six months from that very first entry and also to
any other first entry taking place after the expiry of any new period of
six months following an earlier date of first entry.

(1) OJ C 171, 9.07.2005.

(1) OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 October
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil
d'État, France ) — Nicolae Bot v Préfet du Val-de-Marne

(Case C-241/05) (1)

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement —
Article 20(1) — Conditions of movement of nationals of a
third country not subject to a visa requirement — Maximum
stay for a period of three months during the six months
following the date of first entry into the Schengen Area —
Successive stays — Definition of ‘first entry’)

(2006/C 294/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nicolae Bot

Defendant: Préfet du Val-de-Marne

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2006
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Bács-Kiskun
Megyei Bíróság and the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság —
Republic of Hungary) — Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzü-
győrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága
(C-
290/05), Ilona Németh v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi
Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-333/05)

(Joined Cases C-290/05 and C-333/05) (1)

(Internal taxation — Registration duty on motor vehicles —
Used motor vehicles — Importation)

(2006/C 294/27)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring courts

Bács-Kiskun Megyei Bíróság and Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) —
Interpretation of Article 20(1) of the Convention implementing
the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Govern-
ments of
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) — Meaning of first entry into the territories of
the Contracting Parties

the Benelux Economic Union,

the States of

Applicants: Ákos Nádasdi
333/05)

(C-290/05) and Ilona Németh (C-

Defendants: Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális
Parancsnoksága (C-290/05) and Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-
Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-333/05)