Case C-121/08: Action brought on 19 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2008-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, blood transfusion, health control, health legislation, national implementing measure, traceability

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/17

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

Form of order sought

(Case C-113/08)

(2008/C 116/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

firms and credit

the European Parliament and of

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2006/49/EC (1) of
the
Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of invest-
ment
institutions and in particular the
following: Article 17, Article 72, Article 22 to 25,
Article 30, Article 33, Article 35, Article 40, Article 41,
Article 43, Article 44, Article 50, Annexes
I and II,
Annex VII, 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 2006/49/EC
into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

(1) OJ 2006 L 177, p. 201.

to

necessary

provisions

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative
comply with
Commission Directive 2005/62/EC (1) of 30 September
2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council as regards Community stan-
dards and specifications relating to a quality system for
blood establishments, and in any event by not notifying
those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

for

transposition of Directive 2005/62 into

(1) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 41.

Action brought on 19 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-121/08)

(2008/C 116/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Kontou-Durande and L. Pignataro)

Action brought on 17 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

(Case C-117/08)

(2008/C 116/30)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Kontou-Durande and L. Pignataro)

Form of order sought

to

necessary

provisions

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative
comply with
Commission Directive 2005/61/EC (1) of 30 September
2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability require-
ments and notification of serious adverse reactions and
events, and in any event by not notifying those provisions
to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

C 116/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

for

transposition of Directive 2005/61 into

(1) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
Amsterdam lodged on 21 March 2008 — Dominic
Wolzenburg

(Case C-123/08)

(2008/C 116/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Action brought on 19 mars 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

(Case C-122/08)

(2008/C 116/32)

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Language of the case: English

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dominic Wolzenburg

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Mr M. Wilderspin, Agent)

Questions referred

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

1.

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 (1) on the right of citizens of the Union
and their family members to move and reside freely within
the territory of the Member States, or in any event by failing
to communicate them to the Commission,
the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 30 April 2006.

(1) OJ L 158, p. 77.

Should persons who are staying in or are residents of the
executing Member State, as referred to in Article 4(6) of the
Framework Decision (1), be taken to mean persons who do
not have the nationality of the executing Member State, but
do have the nationality of another Member State and are
lawfully resident in the executing Member State pursuant to
Article 18(1) EC, regardless of the duration of that lawful
residence?

2a.

If the answer to question 1 is negative, should the terms
referred to in that question be interpreted as meaning that
they concern persons who do not have the nationality of
the executing Member State, but do have the nationality of
another Member State and, prior to their arrest under a
European arrest warrant, have been lawfully resident in the
executing Member State pursuant to Article 18(1) EC for at
least a certain period?

2b. If the answer to question 2a is affirmative, what require-

ments must lawful residence meet?

3.

the answer

If
to question 2a is affirmative, may the
executing Member State lay down, in addition to a require-
ment concerning the duration of lawful residence, supple-
mentary administrative requirements, such as possession of
a permanent residence permit?

4. Does a national measure specifying the conditions under
which a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the
enforcement of a custodial sentence is rejected by the judi-
cial authority of the executing Member State come within
the (material) scope of the EC Treaty?