Case C-346/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail de Liège — Belgium) — Monique Chateignier v Office national de l'emploi (ONEM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 39 EC and Articles 3 and 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Grant of unemployment benefit subject to the completion of a period of employment in the competent Member State)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, equal treatment, foreign national, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, labour law, traineeship, unemployment insurance

C 326/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance (single judge) in Case T-157/04 De Bry v Commission,
setting aside the decision of 26 May 2003 drawing up the
appellant's career development report for the period from 1 July
2001 to 31 December 2002.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls in part the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-157/04 De Bry v Commission,
in so far as it set aside the
Commission decision of 26 May 2003 making definitive the career
development report of Mr De Bry in respect of the period from 1
July 2001 to 31 December 2002 on the ground of a breach of
the rights of the defence guaranteed by Article 26 of the Staff
Regulations of Officials of
the European Communities, on the
ground of inconsistency between some descriptive comments and the
corresponding numerical mark, as regards the criticism of failure to
comply with working hours;

2. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs in connection with the
present proceedings and those incurred in the proceedings at first
instance.

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 56(1) EC and of Articles
28, 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement –National provisions
making exemption from capital gains tax arising on the transfer
for valuable consideration of real property used as the perma-
nent residence of a taxable person or of his family subject to the
condition that such gains are reinvested in the purchase of real
property in national territory

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force fiscal provisions, such as
Article 10(5) of the Personal Income Tax Code, making entitlement
to exemption from tax on capital gains arising from the transfer for
valuable consideration of real property intended for the taxable
person's own and permanent residence or for that of a member of
his family subject to the condition that the gains realised should be
reinvested in the purchase of real property situated in Portuguese
territory, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, and under Articles 28
and 31 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May
1992;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Portuguese Republic

(Case C-345/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax legisla-
tion — Conditions for exemption of capital gains arising on
the transfer for valuable consideration of real property —
Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — Articles 28 and 31 of
the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area —
Cohesion of the tax system — Housing policy)

(2006/C 326/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
travail de Liège — Belgium) — Monique Chateignier v
Office national de l'emploi (ONEM)

(Case C-346/05) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 39 EC and Arti-
cles 3 and 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Grant of
unemployment benefit subject to the completion of a period of
employment in the competent Member State)

(2006/C 326/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de travail de Liège

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monique Chateignier

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes
and J. Menezes Leitão, Agents)

Defendant: Office national de l'emploi (ONEM)

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/19

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de travail de Liège
— Interpretation of Article 39(2) EC,

and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the
effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
(OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 39(2) EC and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of
their families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under
which the competent
the Member State of residence
denies unemployment benefits to a national of another Member State
on the ground that, on the date when the benefit claim was submitted,
the person concerned had not completed a specified period of employ-
ment in that Member State of residence, whereas there is no such
requirement for nationals of that Member State.

institution of

(1) OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of
the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Grand-
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive.

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-77/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and
programmes on the environment — Failure to implement
within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 326/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, Agents)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 October
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Republic of Austria

(Case C-94/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose — Directive 2002/49/EC)

(2006/C 326/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, Agents)

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

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, Agent)

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment
and management of environmental noise — Declaration by the
Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive
relating to the assessment and management of environmental
noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p.12)