Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008 — European Parliament (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark (C-295/06) v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 2002/95/EC — Electrical and electronic equipment — Restriction of use of certain hazardous substances — Decabromodiphenyl ether ( DecaBDE ) — Commission Decision 2005/717/EC — Exemption of DecaBDE from the prohibition on use — Actions for annulment — Commission's implementing powers — Infringement of the enabling provision)
Date: 2008-04-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, public health, waste management

C 116/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Designation of the Chamber responsible for cases of the
kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of Justice

second paragraph of Article 10 EC and Article 3(1)(g) EC —
National legislation prohibiting all advertising in the dental care
sector

(2008/C 116/02)

At its meeting of 12 February 2008, the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, designated, for the period from 1 March
to 6 October 2008, the Third Chamber of the Court as being
the Chamber which,
in accordance with Article 9(1) of the
Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, is to be responsible
for cases of the kind referred to in Article 104b of the Rules.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
de Première Instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Criminal
proceedings against Ioannis Doulamis

(Case C-446/05) (1)

(Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC —
legislation prohibiting advertising of dental care
National

services)

(2008/C 116/03)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles

Party in the main criminal proceedings

Ioannis Doulamis

Operative part of the judgment

Article 81 EC, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC and the
second paragraph of Article 10 EC, does not preclude a national law,
such as the Law of 15 April 1958, which prohibits any person or
dental care providers, in the context of professional services or a dental
surgery, from engaging in advertising of any kind in the dental care
sector.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 April 2008
— European Parliament (C-14/06), Kingdom of Denmark
(C-295/06) v Commission of the European Communities

(Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06) (1)

(Directive 2002/95/EC — Electrical and electronic equipment
— Restriction of use of certain hazardous substances —
Decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) — Commission Deci-
sion 2005/717/EC — Exemption of DecaBDE from the prohi-
bition on use — Actions for annulment — Commission's
enabling
implementing powers — Infringement of

the

provision)

(2008/C 116/04)

Languages of the case: English and Danish

Intervening parties: Union des Dentistes et Stomatologistes de
Belgique (UPR), Jean Totolidis

Parties

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Première
Instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 81 EC, the

Applicants: European Parliament, (represented by: K. Bradley, A.
Neergaard and I. Klavina, Agents)
(C-14/06), Kingdom of
Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, B. Weis Fogh and J. Bering
Liisberg, Agents) (C-295/06)

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/3

Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (Case
C-14/06), (represented by: J. Molde, B. Weis Fogh and J. Bering
Liisberg, Agents), Portuguese Republic,
(represented by: L.
Fernandes and M.J. Lois, Agents), Republic of Finland, (repre-
sented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agent), Kingdom of
Sweden, (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent), Kingdom of Norway,
(represented by: I. Djupvik, K. Waage and K.B. Moen, Agent, and
by E. Holmedal, advokat)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by X. Lewis, M. Konstantinidis and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, Agent,
and by J. Maurici, Barrister)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany)) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-96/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC —
Export refunds — Refusal — Non-compliance with Direc-
tive 91/628/EEC — Adverse effect on animal welfare —
Burden of proof — Lack of evidence)

(2008/C 116/05)

Language of the case: German

Re:

Annulment of the Commission Decision of 13 October 2005
amending for the purposes of adapting to the technical progress
the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on the restriction of
the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and elec-
tronic
number
C(2005) 3754)
(OJ 2005 L 271,
p. 48) — Exemption of decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’)
from the marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of
Directive 2002/95/EC without respecting the conditions laid
down by Article 5(1) of that directive

(Text with EEA relevance)

equipment

document

(notified

under

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Point 2 of

the Annex

to Commission Decision
2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of
adapting to technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of
the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic
equipment;

2. Declares that the effects of point 2 of

the Annex to Decision

2005/717 are maintained until 30 June 2008 inclusive;

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed
rules of application for the export refund arrangements as
regards the welfare of
live bovine animals during transport
(OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) — Possibility for competent authority to
refuse to grant export refunds where it considers, ‘in the light of
… all other elements at its disposal’, that the provisions of
Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the
protection of animals during transport and amending Direc-
tives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) have
not been complied with — Burden of proof — Refusal of
refunds because of the use of a ship included in a list of ships
not complying with the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC
(‘negative list’) in the absence of indications that the wellbeing
of the animals was actually affected

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
costs of the European Parliament and those of the Kingdom of
Denmark in Case C-295/06;

Operative part of the judgment

4. Orders

the Kingdom of Denmark,

the
the Kingdom of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Portuguese Republic,
Sweden,
Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway to bear their own costs.

the Republic of Finland,

in Case C-14/06,

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1. Despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with
Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of
18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application
live
for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of
bovine animals during transport,
the competent authority may
consider, pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation, that Council
Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of
animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC
and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of
29 June 1995, has not been complied with. However, the compe-
tent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on
the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98,