Case C-404/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Schott AG (formerly Schott Glas) (Appeal — State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Contractual promise of payment — Disappearance of an essential condition of the contract — New pleas and arguments — Substitution of reasons — Application for the hearing of witnesses — Test of a private creditor — Grounds of the judgment of the Court of First Instance — Determination of the amount of aid — Article 87(3)(c) EC — Right to be heard — Breach, in respect of the Member State concerned, of the rights of the defence)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), Germany, State aid, action for annulment (EU), appeal, control of State aid, glass industry

C 42/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-251/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 1
and 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Transport —
Freedom to provide services — Maritime cabotage — Towage
services on open sea)

(2007/C 42/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni and
S. Chala, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of
Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of
7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide
services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime
cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — National legislation granting
only vessels flying the Greek flag the right to provide towage
services on open sea.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January
2007 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commis-
sion of the European Communities, Schott AG (formerly
Schott Glas)

(Case C-404/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Contractual
promise of payment — Disappearance of an essential condi-
tion of the contract — New pleas and arguments — Substitu-
tion of reasons — Application for the hearing of witnesses —
Test of a private creditor — Grounds of the judgment of the
Court of First Instance — Determination of the amount of aid
— Article 87(3)(c) EC — Right to be heard — Breach, in
respect of the Member State concerned, of the rights of the
defence)

(2007/C 42/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (represented by:
C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz,
Agents), Schott AG (formerly Schott Glas)
(represented by:
U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

the Court of First
Appeal brought against the judgment of
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 July 2004
in Case T-198/01 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission
dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision
2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by
Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany)
(OJ 2002 L 62, p 30)

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/3

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Technische Glaswerke

in addition to
bearing its own costs, to pay the total costs of the Commission of
the European Communities related to the interlocutory proceedings
and to these proceedings.

Ilmenau GmbH,

3. Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs

incurred by Schott AG in the interlocutory proceedings.

4. Orders Schott AG to bear its own costs related to these proceed-

ings.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länssratten i
Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen) — Yunying Jia v
Migrationsverket

(Case C-1/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of one Member State established in
another Member State — Right to residence of a spouse's
parent, the spouse and the parent being nationals of a non-
Member country — Requirement that the parent be lawfully
resident in a Member State when joining his family in the
Member State of establishment — Evidence required to show
that the parent is a dependant)

(2007/C 42/04)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Länsrätten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yunying Jia

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Utlänningsnämnden (Alien
Appeals Board)
(Sweden) — Interpretation of Article 43 EC,
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within
the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2) and Articles 1(d) and 6(b) of
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition
of restrictions on movement and residence within the Com-
munity for nationals of Member States with regard to establish-
ment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14) — Right

to residence of a parent of a spouse, both holding the nation-
ality of a non-Member State, of a national of a Member State
resident in another Member State who is dependent on that
citizen — Requirement for that parent to reside lawfully in a
Member State when joining his family — Evidence required to
show that the parent is a dependent

Operative part of the judgment

1. Having regard to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003]
ECR I-9607, Community law does not require Member States to
make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member
State, who are members of the family of a Community national
who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the
condition that those family members have previously been residing
lawfully in another Member State;

2. Article 1(1)(d) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard
to establishment and the provision of services is to be interpreted to
the effect that ‘dependent on them’ means that members of the
family of a Community national established in another Member
State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material
support of that Community national or his or her spouse in order
to meet their essential needs in the State of origin of those family
members or the State from which they have come at the time when
they apply to join that Community national. Article 6(b) of that
directive must be interpreted as meaning that proof of the need for
material support may be adduced by any appropriate means, while
a mere undertaking from the Community national or his or her
the family members concerned need not be
spouse to support
regarded as establishing the existence of the family members' situa-
tion of real dependence.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överkla-
gandenämnden för högskolan, Sweden) — Kaj Lyyski v
Umeå universitet

(Case C-40/05) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 CE —
Obstacles — Vocational training — Teachers — Refusal to
admit to a training course a candidate employed in a school in
another Member State)

(2007/C 42/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för högskolan