Case C-282/08: Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Date: 2008-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, advertising malpractice, consumer protection, domestic market, restriction on competition

C 209/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Form of order sought

— Declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
transpose Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April
2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status
of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or
as persons who otherwise need international protection and
the content of the protection granted and, in any event, by
not communicating those provisions to the Commission,
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 38 of that
directive.

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit for transposition of the directive expired on
10 October 2006.

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

Article 6(1), (2) and (3), Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 8(1)
and (2) of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emis-
sion ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (1);

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to communicate, within the time-limits prescribed in
Directive 2001/81/EC, three types of document concerning the
establishment of national emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and ammonia (NH3).

First, the defendant failed to fulfil
its obligation, set out in
Article 6(1), (2) and (3) of the directive, to draw up programmes
for the progressive reduction of national emissions of the afore-
mentioned pollutants.

the

the defendant did not comply,

in
Secondly and thirdly,
same pollutants, with the provisions of
respect of
Article 7(1) and (2) concerning the preparation and annual
updating of
the national emission inventories and emission
projections for 2010.

Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

it failed to fulfil

Finally,
its obligation to communicate these
three types of document to the Commission within the time-
limits prescribed in Article 8(1) and (2) of the directive.

(Case C-273/08)

(2008/C 209/55)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22.

Parties

Action brought on 27 June 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

(Case C-282/08)

(2008/C 209/56)

Language of the case: French

— declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission
of the European Communities its programmes for the reduc-
tion of national emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
oxides
(VOC) and
ammonia (NH3),
its national emission inventories of SO2,
NOX, VOC and NH3, and its annual projections for SO2,
NOX, VOC and NH3
the Grand Duchy of
for 2010,
its obligations under
failed to fulfil
Luxembourg has

(NOX), volatile organic

compounds

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Roels and W. Wils, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/37

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with 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 and amending
Council Directive
97/7/EC,
98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial
Practices Directive’) (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform
the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under this directive;

84/450/EEC, Directives

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

for

The time-limit
transposition of Directive 2005/29/EC
expired on 12 June 2007. However, at the date the present
action was brought, the defendant had still not taken the neces-
sary measures to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had
not informed the Commission thereof.

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

(b) Does the fact that the product concerned bears the CE

marking have any bearing on that interpretation?

2. If

the answer to the first question is negative, are Para-
graphs 8 and 11 of Swedish Ordinance (1998:944) on, inter
alia, prohibition in certain cases in connection with the trade
in, and importation and exportation of chemical products,
which are based on the considerations stated above, compa-
tible with Articles 29 EC and 30 EC in the case where those
provisions are applied to amalgam containing mercury for
dental use which bears the CE marking?

(1) OJ L 169, p. 1.

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court
of 11 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Eivind F. Kramme v
SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S

(Case C-396/06) (1)

(2008/C 209/58)

Language of the case: Denmark

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Svea Hovrätt
— Miljööverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 30 June 2008
— Kemikalieinspektionen v Nordiska Dental AB

The President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court has ordered
that the case be removed from the register.

(Case C-288/08)

(2008/C 209/57)

Language of the case: Swedish

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

Referring court

Svea Hovrätt — Miljööverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kemikalieinspektionen

Defendant: Nordiska Dental AB

Questions referred

1 (a) Are the provisions of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of
14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (1) to be inter-
preted as constituting obstacles to the application of a
national prohibition on commercial exports from the
country in question of amalgam containing mercury for
dental use which is based on considerations of environ-
mental and health protection?

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court
the European
of 10 June 2008 — Commission of

Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-416/06) (1)

(2008/C 209/59)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.