Case C-192/07: Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, family migration, foreign national, rights of aliens

C 117/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Questions referred

1. Is Commission Regulation No 314/2002 (1) invalid in the
light of Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 on
the markets in the sugar
the common organisation of
sector (2) and in the light of the principles of proportionality
and non-discrimination,
for
in that
calculation of the contribution on production, for the exclu-
sion from the financing requirements of those quantities of
sugar contained in processed products, which are exported
without benefit of an export refund?

it does not provide,

2. In the event that the answer to that question is in the nega-

tive:

Is Regulation No 1686/2005 (3)
invalid in the light of
Commission Regulation No 314/2002 and of Article 15 of
Council Regulation No 1260/2001 and of the principle of
proportionality, in that it fixes a contribution on production
for sugar which is calculated on the basis of an ‘average loss’
per tonne exported, which does not take account of the
quantities exported without a refund, although those same
quantities are included in the total used for evaluation of the
total loss to be financed?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002
laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in
the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40).

(2) 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).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005
setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional
levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005
L 271, p. 12).

Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-192/07)

(2007/C 117/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to implement Council
Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right
to family reunification (1), or, by not informing the Commis-
sion of such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

period

The
prescribed
2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

for

transposition

of Directive

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

Action brought on 12 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-199/07)

(2007/C 117/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and D. Kukovec)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by introducing de facto an additional criterion
for automatic exclusion beyond those which are expressly
in Article 31(2) of Council Directive
provided for
93/38/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procure-
ment procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and telecommunications sectors, to the detriment
of foreign consultancy firms, and by failing to distinguish in
the contest in question between qualitative selection criteria
and award criteria, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
obligations flowing from Community legislation on public
procurement, more specifically Articles 4(2), 31(1) and (2)
and 34(1)(a) of Directive 93/38/EEC, as interpreted by the
Court of Justice of the European Communities, the principle
of mutual recognition of
formal qualifications which is
governed by Community law on public procurement, and
Articles 12 and 49 of the Treaty;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.