Case C-263/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 19 June 2008 — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd
Date: 2008-06-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, groundwater, hydraulic works, interpretation of the law, percolation water, tunnel

C 209/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

2. Is Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted
as covering general preventative services where the services
are supplied before the hospital or medical care takes place
and before the hospital or medical care is required in both
temporal and health terms?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
lodged on 19 June 2008 —
domstolen (Sweden)
v
Djurgården-Lilla

Miljöskyddsförening
Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd

Värtans

(Case C-263/08)

(2008/C 209/51)

Language of the case: Swedish

3. Is the term ‘other duly recognised establishments of a similar
nature’ in Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive to be inter-
preted as covering private stem cell banks where the services
— which are performed and supplied by professional health
personnel in the form of nurses, midwives and bioanalysts
— consists in the collection, transportation, analysis and
storage of umbilical cord blood from newborns with a view
to autologous use in connection with possible future hospital
care where the stem cell banks concerned do not receive
support from the public heath insurance scheme and where
the expenditure on the services provided by these stem cell
banks is not covered by the public health insurance scheme?

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

In that connection, is it relevant whether or not a private
stem cell bank has obtained authorisation from a Member
State's competent health authorities to handle tissue and cells
— in the form of processing, preserving and storing stem
cells from umbilical cord blood for autologous use —
pursuant to national legislation which implements Directive
2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety
for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preserva-
tion, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (2)?

4. Is the answer to Questions 1 to 3 affected by whether the
above services are supplied with a view to possible allogeneic
use or provided by a private stem cell bank which has
obtained authorisation from a Member State's competent
health authorities to handle tissue and cells — in the form of
processing, preserving and storing stem cells from umbilical
cord blood for autologous use — pursuant to national legis-
lation which implements Directive 2004/23/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on
setting standards of quality and safety for the donation,
procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and
distribution of human tissues and cells?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
(2) OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening

Defendant: Stockholms kommun genom dess marknämnd

Questions referred

1. Is point 10 of Annex II to Directive 85/337 (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that it encompasses water-related works
which involve the drawing off
for power
cables of groundwater leaking into it and infiltration (supply)
of water into the ground or hill to compensate for any reduc-
tion in the groundwater, and the construction and mainte-
nance of installations for the drawing off and infiltration?

from a tunnel

2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: Does the provision
in Article 10a of Directive 85/337 — that under certain
circumstances the public concerned is to have access to a
review procedure before a court of law or another indepen-
dent and impartial body established by law to challenge the
substantive or procedural legality of a decision — imply that
there is also a requirement that the public concerned is to be
entitled to challenge a decision of a court
in planning
consent proceedings in a case where the public concerned
has had the opportunity of participating in the court's exami-
nation of the question of planning consent and of submitting
its views to that court?

3. If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are affirmative: Are Arti-
cles 1(2), 6(4) and 10a of Directive 85/337 to be interpreted
as meaning that different national requirements can be laid
down with regard to the public concerned referred to in Arti-
cles 6(4) and 10a, with the result that small, locally estab-
lished environmental protection associations have a right to

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/35

participate in the decision-making procedures referred to in
Article 6(4) in respect of projects which may have significant
effects on the environment in the area where the association
is active but do not have a right of appeal such as is referred
to in Article 10a?

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Hungary

(Case C-270/08)

(2008/C 209/53)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Action brought on 19 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-266/08)

(2008/C 209/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande
and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
transpose Council Directive 2004/81/EC (1) of 29 April
issued to third-country
2004 on the residence permit
nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or
who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal
immigration, who cooperate with the competent authorities
and, in any event, by not communicating those provisions
to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 17 of that directive;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit
expired on 5 August 2006.

for

transposition of Directive 2004/81/EC

(1) OJ 2004 L 261, p. 19.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Hungary

Form of order sought

and

— Declare that the Republic of Hungary has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Directive 2005/29/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning
unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the
internal market
Council Directive
84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regu-
lation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and
of the Council (1), by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that
directive and, in any event, by failing to communicate them
to the Commission;

amending

— order the Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law
expired on 12 June 2007.

(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-272/08)

(2008/C 209/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande
and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain