Case C-73/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 February 2007 — Tietosuojavaltuutettu
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data processing, data protection, dissemination of information, interpretation of the law, personal data

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/19

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to send the report containing the
information required under Article 3(2) of Decision
No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for
monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for
implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
article;

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

use (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2 of that directive;

in the alternative:

declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending,
as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Direc-
tive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medic-
inal products for human use, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to communicate to the
Commission by 15 March 2005 the report containing the infor-
mation required under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004
on, firstly, national policies and measures which limit and/or
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by sources or enhance
removals by sinks, presented on a sectoral basis for each green-
house gas and, secondly, national projections of greenhouse gas
emissions by sources and their removal by sinks as a minimum
for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, organised by gas
and by sector.

(1) OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-67/07)

(2007/C 95/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/24/EC expired on
30 October 2005.

(1) OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 February 2007 —
Tietosuojavaltuutettu

(Case C-73/07)

(2007/C 95/34)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Tietosuojavaltuutettu

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Other parties: Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

Questions referred

1. Is an operation in which data on the earned income, income

from capital and the wealth of natural persons are

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal
medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Com-
munity code relating to medicinal products for human

a) collected from documents in the public domain held by

the tax authorities and processed for publication,

b) published alphabetically in a printed publication by
income bracket and municipality in the form of extensive
lists,

C 95/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

c) disclosed onward on CD-ROM to be used for commercial

Form of order sought

purposes, and

d) processed for the purposes of a text messaging service
whereby mobile phone users can, by indicating an indivi-
dual's name and home municipality and texting to a
given number,
receive in reply data on the earned
income, income from capital and wealth of the individual
indicated, to be regarded as the processing of personal
data within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive
95/46/EC (1)?

2. Is Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the
various operations listed in Question 1(a)
to (d) can be
regarded as the processing of personal data carried out solely
for journalistic purposes within the meaning of Article 9 of
the Directive, having regard to the fact that data on over one
million taxpayers has been collected from data which are in
the public domain under national legislation on the right of
public access? Does the fact that publication of those data is
the principal aim of the operation have any bearing on the
assessment in this case?

3. Is Article 17 of Directive 95/46/EC to be interpreted in
conjunction with the principles and purpose of the Directive
as precluding the publication of data collected for journalistic
purposes
commercial
purposes?

and its onward disclosure

for

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC
on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal
products (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 3 of that directive;

in the alternative:

declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending
Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to
veterinary medicinal products, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/28/EC expired on
30 October 2005.

4. Can Directive 95/46/EC be interpreted as meaning that
personal data files containing, solely and in unaltered form,
material that has been published in the media fall altogether
outside its scope?

(1) OJ 2004 L 136, p. 58.

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to
the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data, OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-76/07)

(2007/C 95/36)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v French Republic

Parties

(Case C-75/07)

(2007/C 95/35)

Language of the case: French

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

to

necessary

provisions

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative
comply with
Commission Directive 2005/28/EC 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 (1), the
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 31 of that directive;