Case C-33/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Dâmbovița — Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și Internelor — Direcția Generală de Pașapoarte București v Gheorghe Jipa (Citizenship of the Union — Article 18 EC — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States)
Date: 2008-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law - national law, Romania, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/11

3. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities for it to rule on the pleas in law of Athinaïki Tech-
niki AE, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of
the European Communities of 2 June 2004 to take no further
action concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic
Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in the disposal of 49 %
of the capital of the Casino Mont Parnès.

4. Orders that the costs be reserved.

(1) OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Dâmbovița — Romania) — Ministerul Administrației și
Internelor — Direcția Generală de Pașapoarte București v
Gheorghe Jipa

(Case C-33/07) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union — Article 18 EC — Directive
2004/38/EC — Right of citizens of the Union and their
family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States)

(2008/C 223/16)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunal Dâmbovița

right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and
reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC,
90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC do not preclude national
legislation that allows the right of a national of a Member State to
travel to another Member State to be restricted, in particular on the
ground that he has previously been repatriated from the latter Member
the
State on account of his ‘illegal residence’
personal conduct of that national constitutes a genuine, present and
sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society
and that the restrictive measure envisaged is appropriate to ensure the
achievement of the objective it pursues and does not go beyond what is
necessary to attain it. It is for the national court to establish whether
that is so in the case before it.

there, provided that

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te
Brussel (Belgium)) — Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen
en voor racismebestrijding v Firma Feryn NV

(Case C-54/07) (1)

(Directive 2000/43/EC — Discriminatory criteria for selecting
staff — Burden of proof — Penalties)

(2008/C 223/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministerul Administrației și
Generală de Pașapoarte București

Internelor — Direcția

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Brussel

Defendant: Gheorghe Jipa

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Dâmbovița —
Interpretation of Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive
2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their
family members to move and reside freely within the territory
of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC
and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18 EC and Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the

Applicant: Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racisme-
bestrijding

Defendant: Firma Feryn NV

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Brussel — Interpretation of
Articles 2(2)(a), 8(1) and 15 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of
29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000
L 180, p. 22) — Staff selection criteria that discriminate directly
on grounds of racial or ethnic origin — Burden of proof —
Appraisal and establishment by a national court — Whether the
national court is, or is not, under an obligation to order that an
end be put to the discrimination