Case C-4/07: Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air transport, foreign national, illegal migration, national implementing measure, removal, transit

C 42/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Question referred

Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

Must Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 (1) of
29 March 1990 be interpreted as meaning that financing must
be excluded in cases in which, notwithstanding implementation
the specific programme for which the financing was
of
obtained,
the marketing and/or processing (in addition) of
products which are not from the Community takes place along
with the marketing and/or processing of products from the
Community in the amounts required by the programme.

(1) OJ L 91, p. 1.

Parties

(Case C-4/07)

(2007/C 42/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting
as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Siegen (Germany), lodged on 3 January 2007 — Criminal
proceedings against Frank Weber

Form of order sought

(Case C-1/07)

(2007/C 42/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Siegen

— a declaration that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases
of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) or, in any
case, by having failed to communicate them to the Commis-
sion, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under that directive;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into
domestic law expired on 6 December 2005.

Party to the main proceedings

(1) OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26.

Frank Weber

Question referred

Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of Direc-
tive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member
State is precluded, within its territory, from refusing to recognise
or from denying the validity of an entitlement to drive under a
driving licence issued by another Member State because the
right
to drive was withdrawn from its holder in the first
Member State after the grant to him in another Member State of
a so-called ‘second’ EU right to drive, if the withdrawal of the
right to drive is based on an incident or on misconduct which
occurred prior to the grant of the right to drive by the other
Member State?

Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-5/07)

(2007/C 42/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EC of 29 July 1991 on driving licenses, OJ

L 237, p. 1.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and P. Guerra e Andrade, Acting
as Agents)

Defendant: the Portuguese Republic