Case C-33/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa (Romania) lodged on 24 January 2007 — Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor — Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti v Gheorghe Jipa
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law - national law, Romania, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law

C 140/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul
Dâmboviţa (Romania) lodged on 24 January 2007 — Minis-
terul Administraţiei şi Internelor — Direcţia Generală de
Paşapoarte Bucureşti v Gheorghe Jipa

(Case C-33/07)

(2007/C 140/10)

members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States be interpreted as meaning that the
Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom
of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on
grounds of ‘public policy’ and ‘public security’ automati-
cally, without
that person's ‘personal conduct’ being
examined?

Language of the case: Romanian

(1) OJ L 158, p. 77.

Referring court

Tribunalul Dâmboviţa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Administraţiei şi
Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti

Internelor — Direcţia

Defendant: Gheorghe Jipa

Questions referred

(1) Must Article 18 EC (consolidated version published in OJ
2002 C 325 of 24.12.2002) be interpreted as meaning that
the legislation in force in Romania (Articles 38 and 39 of
Law 248/2005 on the conditions for the free movement of
Romanian citizens abroad) places obstacles in the way of
the free movement of persons?

2 (a) Do Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 (national legis-
lation), which prevent a person (who is a Romanian
citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving
freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of
the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free
movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC?

(b) May a Member State of the European Union (in this
case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the
right of freedom of movement of citizens within the
territory of another Member State?

3 (a) Does the concept of

residence’ used in the
‘illegal
national provisions of Government Decree 825/2005
approving the Agreement between the Government of
Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the
Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the
other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an
illegal situation (the provision on the basis of which the
readmission of the defendant was ordered, his situation
being that of ‘illegal residence’) fall within the grounds
of ‘public policy’ or ‘public security’ provided for in
Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EEC, (1) so that a
restriction on the freedom of movement of such a
person may be imposed?

(b) If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative,
must Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
on the right of citizens of the Union and their family

Appeal brought on 8 March 2007 by Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered by
the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 14
December 2006 in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke
Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-139/07P)

(2007/C 140/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by V. Kreuschitz and P. Aalto, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau
GmbH, Schott Glas, Kingdom of Sweden and Republic of
Finland

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14
December 2006 (1)
in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke
the
Ilmenau v Commission which annuls the decision of
Commission of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses access to
documents
in
respect of aid granted to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau
GmbH, and

relating to the investigation procedures

— order Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the

costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the European Communities request

The Commission of
the
Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02, which annuls the deci-
sion of the Commission of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses
access to documents relating to the investigation of aid granted
to Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH.