Case C-37/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
Date: 2007-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, admission of aliens, foreign national, legal status, national implementing measure, residence permit, rights of aliens

C 69/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.3.2007

2. Do the rules laid down in Articles 97(5) and (7) of the
Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług of 11 March 2004 …
constitute special measures to prevent certain types of tax
evasion and avoidance within the meaning of Article 27(1)
of the Sixth Directive?

(1) OJ L 71, 1967, p. 1301.
(2) OJ L 145, p. 1.

Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-34/07)

(2007/C 69/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Hungary

Form of order sought

(Case C-30/07)

(2007/C 69/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning
the status of third-country nationals who are long-term resi-
dents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them
to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on
23 January 2006.

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and B.D. Simon, acting as Agent
(s))

(1) OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.

Defendant(s): Republic of Hungary

Form of order sought

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

— A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to implement
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003
concerning the status of third-country nationals who are
long-term residents (1) or by failing to inform the Commis-
sion thereof, the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive.

Parties

(Case C-37/07)

(2007/C 69/18)

Language of the case: French

— An order that the Republic of Hungary pay the costs.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the implementation of the directive in
national law expired on 23 January 2006.

(1) OJ L 16, 2003, p. 44.

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning
the status of third-country nationals who are long-term resi-
dents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them
to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/9

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on
23 January 2006.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto lodged on 2 February
2007 — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP)
and Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da
Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

(1) OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.

(Case C-42/07)

(2007/C 69/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

Referring court

Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto

(Case C-41/07)

(2007/C 69/19)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Caeiros and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— principally, a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC (1) of
8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines
for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal
products for human use, as well as the requirements for
authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such
products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 31 of that directive;

— or, a declaration that, by failing in any event to communi-
cate those provisions to the Commission of the European
Communities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

— an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition into domestic law of
that directive expired on 29 January 2006.

(1) OJ L 91, 2005, p. 13.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional
and Baw International Ltd

(CA/LPFP)

Defendant: Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia
de Lisboa

Questions referred

1. Does the monopoly granted to Santa Casa [da Misericórdia de
Lisboa], when relied on against Baw [International Ltd], that is
to say, against a provider of services established in another
Member State in which it lawfully provides similar services,
which has no physical establishment in Portugal, constitute
an impediment to the free provision of services, in breach of
the principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of
establishment and the free movement of payments enshrined
in Articles 49, 43 and 56 respectively of the EC Treaty?

2. Is it contrary to Community law, in particular to the above-
mentioned principles, for rules of domestic law such as those
at issue in the main proceedings first to establish a mono-
poly in favour of a single body for the operation of lotteries
and mutual betting and then to extend that monopoly to
‘the entire national territory, including … the internet’?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 February 2007 —
D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-43/07)

(2007/C 69/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden