Case C-340/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/73/EC — Equal treatment for men and women — Access to employment, vocational training and promotion — Working conditions — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2008-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, gender equality, job access, national implementing measure, promotion, vocational training, working conditions

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/9

business’ does not

include vehicles which a leasing undertaking
purchases with a view, as in the case in the main proceedings, to
leasing them and subsequently selling them upon termination of the
respective leasing contracts, as the sale of such vehicles at the end of
those contracts is an integral part of the usual business activities of
that undertaking.

— the conditions 1, 10, 11 and 15, as amended,

imposed by
decision of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade which
were declared incompatible with Community law by Article 1
the Commission Decision of 20 December 2006 (Case
of
No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 7039
final),

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
Article 2 of each of those decisions;

its obligations under

2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

(Case C-196/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Competi-
tion policy — Concentrations — Failure to comply with obli-
gations imposed by the Commission — E.ON/Endesa)

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

(2008/C 107/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

(Case C-340/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2002/73/EC — Equal treatment for men and women —
Access to employment, vocational training and promotion —
to transpose within the
Working conditions — Failure

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V Di Bucci and E. Gippini Fournier, agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Diaz Abad,
agent)

prescribed period)

(2008/C 107/14)

Language of the case: French

Re:

Parties

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
comply with Article 2 of
the Commission Decision of
26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 — E.ON/Endesa
— C(2006) 4279 final) and Article 2 of the Commission Deci-
sion of 20 December 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 —
E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 7039 final)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G.Rozet and M. van Beek. acting as agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C.
Schiltz, agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that by not withdrawing:

— the conditions 1 to 6, 8 and 17 imposed by the decision of the
National Energy Committee which were declared incompatible
with Community law by Article 1 of the Commission Decision
of 26 September 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4197 —
E.ON/Endesa — C(2006) 4279 final), and

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take,
within the prescribed period, all
the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council
Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of
equal
for men and women as regards access to
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 1)

treatment

C 107/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that, by not having adopted within the prescribed period,
all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament
the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council
and of
Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employ-
ment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the first paragraph of Article 2(1) of that directive.

2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

3. If

the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
Article 12 EC preclude national
rules which exclude
nationals of Member States of the European Union even
the social assistance benefits which are
from receipt of
granted to illegal immigrants?

(1) OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Josif
Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

(Case C-23/08)

(2008/C 107/16)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
lodged on 22 January 2008 —
Nürnberg (Germany)
(ARGE)
Athanasios Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft

Nürnberg 900

(Case C-22/08)

(2008/C 107/15)

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Language of the case: German

Applicant: Josif Koupatantze

Referring court

Sozialgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Athanasios Vatsouras

Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

Questions referred

1. Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of

the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compa-
tible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC?

2. If

the answer

to question 1 is

in the negative, does
Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude
national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of
residence
social assistance if
the
permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under
other provisions?

the maximum period of

Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

Questions referred

1. Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of

the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compa-
tible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC?

2. If

the answer

to question 1 is

in the negative, does
Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude
national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of
residence
social assistance if
permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of
the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under
other provisions?

the maximum period of

3. If

the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
Article 12 EC preclude national
rules which exclude
nationals of Member States of the European Union even
from receipt of
the social assistance benefits which are
granted to illegal immigrants?

(1) OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.