Case C-139/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2002/96/EC and 2003/108/EC — Waste — Electrical and electronic equipment)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, electrical equipment, electronic waste, financing, national implementing measure, waste management

C 95/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Preliminary ruling –Interpretation of Article 11a(2) of Commis-
sion Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provi-
sions for the implementation of the Community transit proce-
dure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987
L 107, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) —
Offence or irregularity committed in the course of an external
Community transit operation (T1) — Period for provision of
proof as to the place in which the offence or irregularity was
committed indicated only after the decision to recover duty had
been taken and in the course of complaint proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of
27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Com-
munity transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that proce-
dure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of
29 May 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member
State to which the office of departure belongs cannot grant to the prin-
cipal the three-month period to enable it to provide proof of the regu-
larity of the transit operation or proof of the place where the offence or
irregularity was actually committed after the decision has been taken to
proceed to recovery of the import duties, during the proceedings relating
to a complaint lodged against that decision.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

Applicant: Campina GmbH & Co.,
emzett GmbH

formerly TUFFI Campina

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Re:

the

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht des Landes
second subparagraph of
Brandenburg — Validity of
Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of
9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of
the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57,
p. 12), as amended by Regulation 1001/98 (OJ 1998 L 142, p.
22) — Penalty for failure to comply with the time-limit for the
annual submission of the statements of the individual producers
— Slight delay in observing the time-limit — Principle of
proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty
must be respected by national courts when they have to penalise prac-
tices which do not comply with rules laid down by Community legisla-
tion.

In the case of a slight delay in observing the deadline such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, the system of financial penalties provided
for by Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001
of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and
milk products is less severe than that provided for by the first indent of
the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on
the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May
1998.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
des Landes Brandenburg (Germany)) — Campina GmbH &
Co., formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Hauptzol-
lamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

(Case C-45/06) (1)

(Milk and milk products — Additional levy — Slight delay in
observing the time-limit for communication of the summary
of statements — Financial penalty — Regulation (EEC)
No 536/93 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 —
second subparagraph — Regulation (EC)
Article 3(2),
No 1392/2001 — Article 5(3) — Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 2988/95 — Article 2(2), second sentence — Principle of
retroactive application of the less severe penalty)

(2007/C 95/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-139/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives
2002/96/EC and 2003/108/EC — Waste — Electrical and
electronic equipment)

(2007/C 95/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/13

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt within the prescribed period all measures necessary to
comply with Directives 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and
electronic equipment
(OJ 2003 L 137, p. 24) and
2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC (OJ 2003
L 345, p. 106)

(WEEE)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary
to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Direc-
tives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC
on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of
companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance
undertakings (OJ 2003 L 178, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and admin-

istrative provisions necessary to comply with:

— Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE), and

— Directive 2003/108/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 8 December 2003 amending Directive
2002/96,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108 of 6.5.2006.

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003
amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC
and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of
certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions
and insurance undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March
2007 — T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş
Ticaret AŞ v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Devinlec Développe-
ment Innovation Leclerc SA

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

(Case C-171/06 P) (1)

Italian Republic

(Case C-160/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2003/51/EC — Company law — Annual accounts of
certain types of companies — Failure to transpose within the
prescribed period)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Figurative mark — Opposi-
tion by the proprietor of an earlier national trade mark —
Likelihood of confusion)

(2007/C 95/22)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 95/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve diş Ticaret
AŞ (represented by: M. Francetti and F. Jacobacci, avvocati)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Montaguti and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent,
P. Gentili, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(represented by:
(Trade Marks and Designs)
A. Folliard Monguiral and J. Novais Gonçalves, Agents), Devinlec
J.-
Développement
P. Simon, avocet)

Innovation Leclerc SA (represented by: