Case C-106/08: Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2008-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, drivers, road transport, traffic control

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/23

Form of order sought

Action brought on 6 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

The Commission claims that the Court should,

1. Declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community by

— making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of
birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the
market legally in other Member States subject to restric-
tive conditions
require the market participants
concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to
comply with the special Belgian requirements, and failing
to recognise the marking recognised in other Member
States or the certificates issued for this purpose by the
CITES authorities;

that

— denying traders the possibility to receive exemptions
from the prohibition to keep indigenous European birds
legally in other
which were brought
Member State.

to the market

2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(Case C-106/08)

(2008/C 128/41)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Zavvos and N. Yerrell)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court is asked to:

The Royal Decree of 9 September 1981 on the protection of
birds in the Flemish Region and the Royal Decree of 26 October
2001 on measures concerning the import, export and transit of
certain species of non-indigenous wild birds contain provisions
pursuant to which (1) the import, keeping and sale of specimens
of birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the
market legally in other Member States are subject to restrictive
conditions, and (2) traders are denied the possibility to receive
exemptions from the prohibition to keep indigenous European
birds that were brought to the market legally in other Member
States.

those measures

The Commission submits
constitute
that
measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions and
are therefore, as a matter of principle, prohibited under
Article 28 EC. First, the conditions created by the Belgian legal
provisions have the effect of requiring changes to the manner in
which specimens of birds that were brought to the market
legally in other Member States are presented and, second, trade
is also restricted as a result of the prohibition on traders to keep
certain birds that were brought to the market legally in other
Member States.

The Commission does not exclude in general that certain restric-
tions on trade can be justified in this context under Article 30 EC
if they aim to protect rare species with specific characteristics.
However, this is not what the Belgian legal provisions aim to
do. In addition, the Belgian provisions are neither necessary nor
proportionate to, where required, achieve such a legitimate aim.

— declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to
ensure that vehicles put into service for the first time from
1 May 2006 must be fitted with recording equipment in
accordance with the requirements of Annex IB to Regulation
(EEC) No 3821/85 and to issue the corresponding driver
cards, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2(1)(a) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2135/98, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March
2006;

— order Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 2(2) of the Regulation states that ‘Member States shall
take the necessary measures to ensure that they are able to issue
driver cards at the latest on the 20th day following the day of
publication of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006’.

Regulation No 561/2006 was published in the Official Journal of
the European Union on 11 April 2006 and it follows that the
mandatory requirement of installation of a digital tachograph in
all vehicles put into circulation in the European Union for the
first time became applicable on 1 May 2006.

The Hellenic Republic responded to the Commission's reasoned
opinion on 30 May 2007 and explained to the Commission
that, taking into account every possible delay completing the
procedure, issue of the digital tachograph cards to drivers would
be possible by the end of 2007.

C 128/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2008

The Hellenic Republic responded to the Commission's reasoned
opinion on 30 May 2007 and explained to the Commission
that, taking into account every possible delay in completing the
procedure, issue of the digital tachograph cards to drivers would
be possible by the end of 2007.

The Commission asks the Court to order the Hellenic Republic
to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts
v Proost NV

(Case C-116/08)

(2008/C 128/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-112/08)

(2008/C 128/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M.A. Rabanal Suárez and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2006/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking
up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and in
particular: Article 68(2), Article 72, Article 73(3), Article 74,
Articles 99, 100 and 101, Articles 110 to 114, Articles 118
and 119, Articles 124 to 127, Articles 129 to 132,
Article 133, Article 136, Articles 144 and 145, Article 149,
Article 152, Article 154(1), Article 155, Annex V, Annex VI
(except part I), Annex VII to XII (except Annex X parts I, II
and III), and in any event, by failing to communicate those
provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/48/EC
into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

(1) OJ 2006 L 177, p. 1.

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C. Meerts

Respondent: Proost NV

Question referred

Are clauses 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement
on parental
leave concluded on 14 December 1995 by the
general cross-industry organisations UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC
which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June
1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to be interpreted as meaning
that, where an employer unilaterally terminates an employment
contract without urgent cause or without compliance with the
statutory period of notice at a time when the worker is availing
the
himself of arrangements
payment in lieu of notice that is due to the worker must be
determined by reference to the base salary calculated as if the
worker had not reduced his working hours as a form of parental
leave in accordance with clause [2].3(a) of the framework agree-
ment?

reduced working hours,

for

(1) OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Transportes
Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL v Administración del
Estado

(Case C-118/08)

(2008/C 128/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo