Case C-387/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Telecommunications sector — Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/19/EC ( Framework Directive) — Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC ( Access Directive) — Electronic communications networks and services — Fixed and mobile telephone networks — Termination of calls — Incoming traffic — Limit on the powers of the national authority for communications regulation)
Date: 2008-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure, regulation of telecommunications, systems interconnection, transmission network

C 64/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Operative part of the judgment

Parties to the main proceedings

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services,
in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on
electronic commerce’), Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information
society, Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property
rights, and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal
data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications
sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) do not
require the Member States to lay down, in a situation such as that in
the main proceedings, an obligation to communicate personal data in
order to ensure effective protection of copyright in the context of civil
proceedings. However, Community law requires that, when transposing
those directives, the Member States take care to rely on an interpreta-
tion of them which allows a fair balance to be struck between the
various fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order.
Further, when implementing the measures transposing those directives,
the authorities and courts of the Member States must not only inter-
pret their national law in a manner consistent with those directives but
also make sure that they do not rely on an interpretation of them
which would be in conflict with those fundamental rights or with the
other general principles of Community law, such as the principle of
proportionality.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Applicants: The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan
Akyuz, Birol Ozturk

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal — Inter-
pretation of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
Association Council — Concept of a worker duly registered as
belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish
national employed as an au pair after obtaining leave to remain
for
to pursue that activity — Turkish
nationals holding leave to remain to follow a course of study
and holding permission to work for a maximum of 20 hours
per week during term time

two years in order

Operative part of the judgment

The fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory
of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of
the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly
that Member State
registered as belonging to the labour force’ of
within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Asso-
ciation Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
Association. Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from
being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining
renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 January
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal
(United
Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of Ezgi Payir,
Burhan Akyuz, Birol Ozturk v Secretary of State for the
Home Department

(England and Wales)

(Civil Division)

Judgment
10 January 2008 — Commission of

(Second

Court

the

of

Chamber)
of
the European

Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-294/06) (1)

(Case C-387/06) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement
for workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council
— First indent of Article 6(1) — Worker duly registered as
belonging to the labour force — Leave to enter as a student or
as an au pair — Effect on the right to remain)

(2008/C 64/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Telecommunications sector — Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of
Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Framework’ Directive) — Article 8(1)
and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC (‘Access’ Directive) —
Electronic communications networks and services — Fixed
and mobile telephone networks — Termination of calls —
Incoming traffic — Limit on the powers of the national
authority for communications regulation)

(2008/C 64/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Huttunen and M. Shotter, Agents)

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/11

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-
Purokoski, Agent)

Re:

electronic

Failure to fulfil obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of
Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework
for
services
(OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Direc-
tive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, elec-
tronic
and associated facilities
(‘Access’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7)

communications networks

communications

networks

and

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of

the European Communities and the

Republic of France to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 January 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias, Greece) — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi
Techniki Etairia Meleton kai
Epivlepseon, Nikolaos
Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE,
Aikaterini Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai
Synergates AE Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A.
Pantazis — Pan. Kyriopoulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE,
Nikolaos Sideris

(Case C-532/06) (1)

(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Carrying
out of a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and
implementing measure for a residential area — Criteria which
may be accepted as ‘criteria for qualitative selection’ or ‘award
criteria’ — Economically most advantageous
tender —
Compliance with the award criteria set out in the contract
documents or contract notice — Subsequent determination of
weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award
criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract
notice — Principle of equal treatment of economic operators
and obligation of transparency)

(2008/C 64/15)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonymi Techniki Etairia
Meleton kai Epivlepseon, Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki AE, Aikaterini
Georgoula, Dimitrios Vasios, N. Loukatos kai Synergates AE
Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki AE, A. Pantazis — Pan. Kyrio-
poulos kai syn/tes OS Filon OE, Nikolaos Sideris

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias —
Interpretation of Article 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) —
Criteria for awarding contract — Subsequent
the
specific weighting for each criterion when the award procedure
was already under way

fixing of

Operative part of the judgment

Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic opera-
tors and the ensuing obligation of
transparency, Article 36(2) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
the award of public service contracts, as
nation of procedures for
amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of
13 October 1997, precludes the contracting authority in a tendering
procedure from stipulating at a later date the weighting factors and
sub-criteria to be applied to the award criteria referred to in the
contract documents or contract notice.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (France)) — Paul Chevassus-Marche v Groupe Danone,
Société Kro beer brands SA (BKSA), Société Evian eaux
minérales d'Evian SA (SAEME)

(Case C-19/07) (1)

(Approximation of
laws — Directive 86/653/EEC —
Self-employed commercial agents — Right of an agent
entrusted with a specific geographical area to a commission
— Transactions concluded without any action on the part of
the principal)

(2008/C 64/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paul Chevassus-Marche