Case C-32/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Failure to notify implementing measures — Obligation to adopt framework legislation in national law — None — Incomplete implementation of or failure to implement Articles 2, 7(2) and 14)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, groundwater, inland waterway, pollution control measures, surface water

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/7

— by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the
Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, entitled ‘Policy and
coordination measure amending and completing the earlier
policy and coordination measure for the implementation of
Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994
concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environ-
mental impact’, amending Annex A(i) and (l) to the Decree of
the President of
the Republic of 12 April 1996, entitled
‘Policy and coordination measure for the implementation of
Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994
concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environ-
mental impact’, allowing projects for the recovery of hazardous
and non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100
tonnes per day covered by Annex I
to Council Directive
85/337, as amended by Council Directive 97/11, to avoid the
environmental
in
Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive, and

impact assessment procedure provided for

— by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the
Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, laying down, for
the purposes of determining whether a project covered by
to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive
Annex II
97/11, must be subject to an environmental
impact assess-
ment, a criterion which is inappropriate in that it may exclude
projects which have a significant effect on the environment from
that assessment,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles
2(1) and 4(1), (2) and (3) of that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpreta-
tion of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and moni-
toring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Wine
purchased without the intention of making a profit in one
Member State by nationals of another Member State and trans-
ported by an undertaking from that second Member State —
Excise duty paid in the first Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council
Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be construed as
meaning that where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a private
individual who is not operating commercially or with a view to making
a profit acquires in one Member State, for his own personal require-
ments and those of other private individuals, products subject to excise
duty which have been released for consumption in that Member State
and arranges for them to be transported to another Member State on
his behalf by a transport company established in that other State,
Article 7 of that Directive, and not Article 8 thereof, is applicable,
with the result that excise duty is also to be levied in that other State.
Under Article 7(6) of the Directive, the excise duty paid in the first
State is, in such a case, to be reimbursed in accordance with Article 22
(3) of the Directive.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris
van Financiën v B.F. Joustra

(Case C-5/05) (1)

(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of
laws — Directive
92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Wine — Articles 7 to 10 —
Determination of the Member State in which duties are
chargeable — Acquisition by a private individual for his own
use and that of other private individuals — Transport to
another Member State by a transport undertaking —
Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-32/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environ-
ment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Failure to notify imple-
menting measures — Obligation to adopt framework legisla-
tion in national law — None — Incomplete implementation of
or failure to implement Articles 2, 7(2) and 14)

(2006/C 331/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2006/C 331/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: B.F. Joustra

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, Agent, and by P. Kinsch, avocat)

C 331/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt
the measures necessary to comply with Directive
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the
European Communities the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions implementing Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy, except
for those relating to Article 3 of that directive, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of
that directive;

2. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Articles 2, 7(2) and 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC, the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 24 of that directive;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4. Orders the Commission of

the European Communities and the

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darm-
stadt
(Administrative Court, Darmstadt) — Interpretation of
Art. 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an
Association between the European Communities and their
Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia of
the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) — Worker of Tunisian
nationality employed in a Member State — Equal treatment as
regards working conditions and remuneration — Curtailment of
the period of the validity of residence permit bringing the work-
er's employment to an end

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean
Agreement establishing an association between the European Commu-
nities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
Tunisia, of the other part, done at Brussels on 17 July 1995 and
approved on behalf of the European Community and the European
Coal and Steel Community by Decision 98/238/EC, ECSC of the
Council and the Commission of 26 January 1998, that provision may
have effects on the right of a Tunisian national to remain in the terri-
tory of a Member State in the case where that person has been duly
permitted by that Member State to work there for a period extending
beyond the period of validity of his permission to remain.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-
tungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed
Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim

(Case C-97/05) (1)

(Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Tunisian worker with
permission to remain in a Member State and to work there —
Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions,
remuneration and dismissal — Curtailment of the period of
validity of the residence permit)

(2006/C 331/12)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Italian Republic

(Case C-161/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system applicable to the
common fisheries policy — Data concerning the species and
quantities landed of fish — Failure to notify)

(2006/C 331/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Gattoussi

Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim

Parties

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

Defendant:
Agent, G. Aiello and D. Del Grazio, lawyers)

Italian Republic (represented by:

I.M. Braguglia,