Case C-237/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, atmospheric pollutant, interpretation of the law, pollution control, public health

C 183/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

above all,

— where, according to the information available to the first
Member State, when the driving licence was issued the
holder of the driving licence had his normal residence in
that Member State and not in the Member State which
issued the driving licence, and

— where, according to the information available to the first
Member State, it must be assumed, on the basis of objec-
tive and judicially verifiable facts, that the holder of the
right to drive would not have had any possibility of
lawfully acquiring a right to drive in the first Member
State.

2. If so, is a third party who is affected by such concentrations
of particulate matter PM10 as could be detrimental to health
entitled to have an action plan drawn up laying down the
measures to be taken in the short term to ensure strict
compliance with the nuisance limit value for particulate
matter PM10?

3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, to what extent
must the measures included in an action plan serve to reduce
the risk of exceeding the limit value and to limit the duration
of such an occurrence? Can an action plan be limited, on the
principle of ‘one step at a time’, to measures which, while
not guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, neverthe-
less contribute in the short
in
ambient air quality?

term to improvements

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 296, p. 55.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter
Janecek v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-237/07)

(2007/C 183/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dieter Janecek

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Derya Beyatli against
the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber)
delivered on 5 March 2007 in Case T-455/04: Derya Beyatli
the European
and Armagan Candan v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-238/07 P)

(2007/C 183/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Derya Beyatli (represented by: A. Demetriades, Δικη-
γόρος)

Other party: Commission of the European Communities

Questions referred

Form of order sought

1. Is Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September
1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1)
to be interpreted as meaning that a third party whose health
is impaired is entitled to the preparation of an action plan
even if, irrespective of any action plan, he is in a position to
enforce his right to avoid any detriment to his health as a
result of the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10
being exceeded, by bringing an action for intervention by the
public authority?

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— set aside the contested Order

— annul the Respondent's decision of 5 May 2004

— order the Respondent to pay the costs of this appeal