Case C-332/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 October 2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Exclusion of expenditure from financing owing to failure to comply with Community rules)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, European Commission, General Court (EU), Greece, action for annulment (EU), common agricultural policy, operational expenditure (EU), public stock, rice

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/13

2) Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, particularly
Article 1(1) and (3), precludes a limitation period laid down by
national law from being applied in such a way that a tenderer is
refused access to a review concerning the choice of procedure for
awarding a public contract or the estimate of the value of that
contract, where the contracting authority has not clearly stated the
total quantity or scope of the contract to the person concerned.
Those provisions of the directive also preclude such a rule from
being extended generally to cover the review of decisions of the
contracting authority,
including those occurring in stages of an
award procedure after the end of that limitation period.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Hungary), Chapter 4
(Competition policy), point 3(a),
to the Act concerning the
conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of
Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the
Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of
Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the
Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which
the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846) and of
Article 33 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) —
taxes which can be characterised as turnover
Prohibition of
taxes — National
legislation authorising local authorities to
introduce a tax on economic operations — Possibility, granted
by the Act of Accession, for the Member State to apply reduc-
tions for that tax during a transitional period.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 October
2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Zala
Megyei Bíróság, Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Republic of
Hungary) — KÖGÁZ rt, E-ON IS Hungary kft, E-ON
DÉDÁSZ rt, Schneider Electric Hungária rt, TESCO
Áruházak rt, OTP Garancia Biztosító rt, OTP Bank rt,
ERSTE Bank Hungary rt, Vodafone Magyarország Mobil
Távközlési rt
(C-283/06) v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási
Hivatal Vezetője, and OTP Garancia Biztosító rt v Vas
Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (C-312/06)

(Joined Cases C-283/06 and C-312/06) (1)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 33(1) of the 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, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of
16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added
tax and amending Directive 77/388 with a view to the abolition of
fiscal frontiers, must be interpreted as not precluding the maintenance
of a charge to tax with characteristics such as those of the tax at issue
in the main proceedings.

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 33(1) — Definition of ‘turn-
over taxes’ — Local business tax)

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006,

OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

(2007/C 297/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring courts

Zala Megyei Bíróság, Legfelsőbb Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: KÖGÁZ rt, E-ON IS Hungary kft, E-ON DÉDÁSZ rt,
Schneider Electric Hungária rt, TESCO Áruházak rt, OTP
Garancia Biztosító rt, OTP Bank rt, ERSTE Bank Hungary rt,
Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési rt (C-283/06), OTP
Garancia Biztosító rt (C-312/06)

Defendants: Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal Vezetője
(C-283/06), Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal (C-312/06)

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 October
2007 — Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-332/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — EAGGF — Exclusion of expenditure from finan-
cing owing to failure to comply with Community rules)

(2007/C 297/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Re:

Parties

References for a preliminary ruling — Zala Megyei Bíróság,
Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Intepretation of Annex X (list referred to

Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and
I. Khalkias, Agents)

C 297/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and H.
Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim

Re:

Re:

the Court of First
Appeal brought against the judgment of
Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2006 in Case T-251/04
Greece v Commission by which the Court dismissed an action
seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of
29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section
and
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)
(notified under document number
C(2004) 1706) (OJ 2004 L 156, p. 47)

European Agricultural Guidance

the

of

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October
2007 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Murat Polat
v Stadt Rüsselsheim

for

(Case C-349/06) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 59 of the
Additional Protocol — First paragraph of Article 7 and
Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council —
Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence of a Turkish
worker's child — Adult child who is no longer dependent on
his parents — Numerous criminal convictions — Lawfulness
of an expulsion order)

(2007/C 297/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Murat Polat

Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Interpre-
tation of the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of
Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council, of
Article 59 of the Additional Protocol relating to the transitional
phase provided for in the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey,
signed on 23 November 1970 (OJ 1977 L 361, p. 60), and of
Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of
the Union and their family members to move and reside freely
within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC,
90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158,
p. 77) — Right of residence of a Turkish national who entered
the national territory as a minor by way of family reunification
and who was financially independent after his majority —
Return to the national territory in a position of financial depen-
dence vis-à-vis his parents — Acquisition of the right of resi-
dence for adults financially dependent on their parents —
Conditions under which the right of
residence is lost —
Criminal convictions — Lawfulness of a decision to expel.

Operative part of the judgment

1) A Turkish national, who was authorised while he was a child to
enter the territory of a Member State in order to join his family
and who has acquired the right of free access to any paid employ-
ment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of
Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
development of
the Association
the Association, adopted by
Council set up by the Association Agreement between the European
Economic Community and Turkey, loses the right of residence in
the host Member State which is a corollary of that right of free
access only in two situations, that is:

— in the circumstances provided for in Article 14(1) of that deci-

sion, or

— if he leaves the territory of the Member State concerned for a

significant length of time without legitimate reason,

even though he is over 21 years of age, is no longer dependent on
his parents, but lives independently in the Member State concerned,
and was not available to join the labour force for several years
because he was during that period serving an unsuspended sentence
of imprisonment.

Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the requirements of
the Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on
Article 59 of
23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on
behalf
(EEC)
No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972;

by Council Regulation

the Community

of