Case C-423/05: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC — Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, unauthorised dumping, waste management

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

Article 6(1) of Directive 83/183 must be interpreted as meaning that
an employee in the public service, the armed forces, the public security
forces or the harbour police corps of a Member State, who stays for at
least 185 days a year in another Member State with the members of
his family in order to carry out an official task of a definite duration in
that latter State, has, during the period of that task, his normal resi-
dence, within the meaning of Article 6(1),
in that other Member
State.

If, at the conclusion of the national court's investigations, it is estab-
lished that the taxes at issue in the main proceedings do not come
within the scope of the tax exemption provided for by Article 1(1) of
Directive 83/183, it will be for the national court, having regard to
the requirements arising from Article 39 EC, to determine whether the
national provisions governing those taxes are such as to ensure that a
person who, in the context of a transfer of residence, imports a vehicle
into his Member State of origin is not placed in a less favourable posi-
tion in connection with those taxes than that of other persons living
permanently in that Member State and, if so, whether such a difference
in treatment is justified by objective considerations that are independent
of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legit-
imate aim pursued by national law.

for

the Community trade mark ‘TRAVATAN’

in
applicant
respect of goods in Class 5 against Decision R 968/2001-3 of
the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2003, which had
dismissed the appeal brought against the decision of the Oppo-
sition Division refusing registration of that mark in the opposi-
tion proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word
mark ‘TRIVASTAN’ in respect of goods in Class 5

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alcon Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Biofarma SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007
— Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA

(Case C-412/05 P) (1)

(Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal
of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 43(2)
and (3) — Genuine use — New plea — Word mark
‘TRAVATAN’ — Opposition by proprietor of earlier national
trade mark ‘TRIVASTAN’)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

French Republic

(Case C-423/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC —
Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)

(2007/C 96/21)

Language of the case: French

(2007/C 96/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: G. Breen, solicitor, and
J. Gleeson SC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(represented by:
(Trade Marks and Designs)
A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) Biofarma SA (represented by:
V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, laywers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03 Alcon
v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the

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

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
O. Christmann, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) on waste, as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and
Article 14(a),
(b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of
26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1)
— Failure to take necessary measures to close down or upgrade
unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites

C 96/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

takes place in a public hospital,

the only condition
ment
imposed by the national legislation for reimbursement is that
prior authorisation be obtained.

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 8
and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March
1991, and Article 14(a),
(b) and (c) of Council Directive
99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC precludes legislation of a Member State, such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, which excludes all reimbursement by a
national social security institution of the costs occasioned by treatment
of persons insured with it in private hospitals in another Member
State, except those relating to treatment provided to children under
14 years of age.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Athinon — Greece) — Aikaterini Stamatelaki v
NPDD Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation
(OAEE)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany)) — Velvet & Steel Immobilien und
Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel

(Case C-444/05) (1)

(Case C-455/05) (1)

(Restrictions on the freedom to provide services — Reimburse-
ment of the cost of treatment in private hospitals — Justifica-
tion for, and proportionality of, the exclusion)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(2) —
Concept of ‘assumption of obligations’ — Assumption of the
obligation to renovate a property — Refusal of exemption)

(2007/C 96/22)

Language of the case: Greek

(2007/C 96/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aikaterini Stamatelaki

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH

Defendant: NPDD Organismos Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelma-
tion (OAEE)

Defendant: Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Protodikio
Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 49 and 50 EC — Condi-
tions governing the
expenses
reimbursement of medical
legislation
incurred in another Member State — National
allowing medical expenses incurred in a private hospital
in
another Member State to be reimbursed only in the case of
treatment of minors under the age of 14 whereas, when treat-

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 13B(d)(2) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ
1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended — Concept of ‘assumption of
obligations’ — Refusal to exempt the assumption of a renova-
tion obligation