Case C-432/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern (Principle of judicial protection — National legislation not providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compatibility of a national provision with Community law — Procedural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Interim protection)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, interpretation of the law, judicial review, right to justice

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/9

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1.8 of Rule No 1 in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as
regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Struc-
tural Funds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/
2004 of 10 March 2004, does not preclude a method of calculating
overheads as eligible expenditure for the purposes of a project co-
financed by the Structural Funds, on the sole ground that the method
is based on a percentage or proportion, in particular, of wage costs or
time worked.

of 22 December 1994, relates to all waters which can be used by
all sea-going vessels, including those which have the greatest capa-
city,
commercial
travelling maritime waterways
purposes.

capable of

for

2) Manoeuvres carried out by a hopper dredger during its operations
of pumping and discharge of materials, that is to say,
journeys
inherent in the carrying out of dredging activities, come within the
scope of the term ‘navigation’ as used in the first subparagraph of
Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81, as amended by Directive 94/
74.

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany)) — Jan de Nul NV v Hauptzollamt
Oldenburg

(Case C-391/05) (1)

(Excise duties — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils
— Directive 92/81/EEC — ‘Navigation within Community
waters’)

(2007/C 95/14)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet
(International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern

(Case C-432/05) (1)

legislation not
(Principle of judicial protection — National
providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compat-
ibility of a national provision with Community law — Proce-
dural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness
— Interim protection)

(2007/C 95/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jan de Nul NV

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

Re:

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd

Defendant: Justitiekanslern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) of
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
(OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Definition of ‘Community waters’
and ‘navigation’ — Taxation of mineral oils used as fuel for a
floating dredger carrying out cleaning work on the Elbe.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen —
Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National
legislation not
providing for an action for a declaration that a legislative provi-
sion conflicts with higher-ranking legal rules — Right of indivi-
duals to effective judicial protection of rights which they derive
from the Community legal order

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

1) The term ‘Community waters’ within the meaning of the first sub-
paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of
19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise
duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC

1. The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights
under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that it does
not require the national legal order of a Member State to provide
for a free-standing action for an examination of whether national

C 95/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

provisions are compatible with Article 49 EC, provided that other
effective legal remedies, which are no less favourable than those
governing similar domestic actions, make it possible for such a
question of compatibility to be determined as a preliminary issue,
which is a task that falls to the national court.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Roquette Frères

2. The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights
under Community law must be interpreted as requiring it to be
possible in the legal order of a Member State for interim relief to
be granted until the competent court has given a ruling on whether
national provisions are compatible with Community law, where the
grant of such relief is necessary to ensure the full effectiveness of the
judgment to be given on the existence of such rights.

3. The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights
under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that, where
the compatibility of national provisions with Community law is
being challenged, the grant of any interim relief to suspend the
application of such provisions until the competent court has given a
ruling on whether those provisions are compatible with Community
law is governed by the criteria laid down by the national
law
applicable before that court, provided that those criteria are no less
favourable than those applying to similar domestic actions and do
not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the interim
judicial protection of those rights.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour adminis-
(France)) — Société Roquette
trative d'appel de Douai
Frères v Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la
Pêche et de la Ruralité

(Case C-441/05) (1)

(Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector —
Isoglucose — Determination of the basic quantities used for
the allocation of production quotas — Isoglucose produced as
an intermediate product — Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC)
No 1785/81 — Article 27(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2038/
1999 — Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 —
Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 — Article 1
of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 — Article 1 of
Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Illegality of a Community
measure raised before the national court — Reference for a
preliminary ruling on validity — Admissibility — Conditions
— Inadmissibility of an action for annulment of the Com-
munity measure)

(2007/C 95/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d'appel de Douai

Defendant: Ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation, de la
Pêche et de la Ruralité

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative
d'appel de Douai — Validity of Article 24(2) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177,
p. 4), Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999
of 13 September 1999 on the common organisation of the
markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1999 L 252, p. 1), Article 1 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of 29 September
2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year, the guaran-
teed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar
sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refi-
neries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2000 L
246, p. 38), Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/
2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the
markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1), Article 1 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September
2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaran-
teed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar
sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refi-
neries under the preferential import arrangements (OJ 2002 L
263, p. 31) and Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of
30 September 2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing
year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for
the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of
sugar refineries under preferential
imports (OJ 2003 L 249,
p. 38) — Setting of basic quantities for the allocation of isoglu-
cose production quotas without taking into account the isoglu-
cose produced as an intermediate product

Operative part of the judgment

1. A natural or legal person such as Roquette Frères, in factual and
legal circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, could
not undoubtedly have brought an admissible action on the basis of
Article 230 EC to annul:

— Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of
30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in
the sugar sector;

— Article 27(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of
the
13 September 1999 on the common organisation of
markets in the sugar sector;

— Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of
for the 2000/01 marketing
the production quotas

29 September 2000 reducing,
year,

the guaranteed quantity under