Case C-150/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Jean Leon Van Straaten v Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne bis in idem principle — Meaning of the same acts and of trial disposed of — Exporting in one State and importing in another State — Acquittal of the accused)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Netherlands, Schengen Agreement, criminal law, drug traffic, interpretation of the law, national law

C 294/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Amalia Valeško

Defendant: Zollamt Klagenfurt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanz-
senat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria) — Interpretation of Arti-
cles 23 EC, 25 EC and 26 EC and of Annex XIII: List referred
to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Slovenia; Heading 6.
Taxation, paragraph 2, of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the
Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of
Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the
Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the
European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 906) — Main-
tenance by the Member States during the transition period of
the same quantitative limits,
for cigarettes imported from
Slovenia without payment of additional excise duty as those
applied with regard to cigarette imports from third countries
— Limitation of the quantity which may be imported by an
individual who is resident on national territory that is stricter
than that fixed for most third countries

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — Jean Leon
Van Straaten v Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië

(Case C-150/05) (1)

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne
bis in idem principle — Meaning of ‘the same acts’ and of
‘trial disposed of’ — Exporting in one State and importing in
another State — Acquittal of the accused)

(2006/C 294/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank 's-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jean Leon Van Straaten

Defendants: Staat der Nederlanden and Republiek Italië

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

the Republic of Latvia,

1) Section 6(2) of Annexe XIII to the Act concerning the conditions
of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the
Republic of Cyprus,
the Republic of
Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the
Republic of Poland,
the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak
Republic and the adjustments to the treaties on which the Euro-
pean Union is founded is to be interpreted as meaning that it does
not preclude the Republic of Austria from maintaining, on a tran-
sitional basis, its legislation containing an exemption from excise
duty reduced to 25 cigarettes for cigarettes coming from Slovenia
imported into the Republic of Austria in the personal luggage of
travellers resident in that Member State and entering it directly via
its land border or inland waters.

2) Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 26 EC must be interpreted as
meaning that they do not prohibit national
legislation such as
that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the exemption
from excise duty for cigarettes imported in travellers' personal
luggage is limited to 25 units on entry to the Republic of Austria
from certain other Member States, in particular the Republic of
Slovenia, notwithstanding the fact that, following the last enlarge-
ment of the European Union, that reduced exemption no longer
applies to any third country with the sole exception of the Swiss
Samnauntal customs enclave, since imports of cigarettes from
third countries generally benefit from an exemption for 200 units.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank 's-Hertogen-
bosch — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention imple-
menting the Schengen Agreement 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 (OJ
2000 L 239, p. 19) — Ne bis in idem principle — ‘Same acts’
and ‘trial disposed of’ — Offence prosecuted as acts of
exporting in one State and as acts of importing in another —
Whether a trial
is finally disposed of in the case where the
person charged is acquitted

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 54 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 in Schengen,
must be interpreted as meaning that:

— the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that
article is identity of the material acts, understood as the exis-
tence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together,
irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal
interest protected;

— in the case of offences relating to narcotic drugs, the quantities
of the drug that are at issue in the two Contracting States
concerned or the persons alleged to have been party to the acts
in the two States are not required to be identical;

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)