Case C-127/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State — Family members who are nationals of non-member countries — Nationals of non-member countries who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses of Union citizens)
Date: 2008-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, foreign national, freedom of movement, interpretation of the law, mixed marriage, residence permit

C 236/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.9.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: J. Čorba, Agent)

Applicant: Dieter Janecek

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— Interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC
of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55) — Entitlement of a third
party whose health is impaired to have an action plan drawn up
as provided for by the Directive, where that
third party is
entitled under national
law to bring legal proceedings for
measures to prevent the value limits of particulate matter being
exceeded

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September
1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be
interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the limit
values or alert
exceeded, persons directly
concerned must be in a position to require the competent national
authorities to draw up an action plan, even though, under national
law, those persons may have other courses of action available to
them for requiring those authorities to take measures to combat
atmospheric pollution.

thresholds may be

2) The Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the
national courts, only to take such measures — in the context of an
action plan and in the short term — as are capable of reducing to
a minimum the risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may
be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those
values or thresholds, taking into account the factual circumstances
and all opposing interests.

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Slovak
Republic

(Case C-493/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2002/22/EC — Article 26(3) — Electronic communications
— Networks and services — Single European emergency call
number — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2008/C 236/06)

Language of the case: Slovak

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take
within the prescribed period the necessary measures to comply
with Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal
service and users' rights relating to electronic communications
networks and services (Universal Service Directive)
(OJ 2002
L 108, p. 51)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that that undertakings which
operate public telephone networks make, in so far as it is technically
feasible, caller location information available to authorities hand-
ling emergencies for calls to the single European emergency call
number ‘112’, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on
universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communica-
tions networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

2. Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Ireland) — Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo
Ikeng, Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten,
Hencheal Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene
Babucke Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska v
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

(Case C-127/08) (1)

(Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of Union citizens and their
family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a
Member State — Family members who are nationals of
non-member countries — Nationals of non-member countries
who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses
of Union citizens)

(2008/C 236/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Braun and J. Javorský, Agents)

Referring court

High Court of Ireland

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Blaise Baheten Metock, Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng,
Christian Joel Baheten, Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, Hencheal
Ikogho, Donna Ikogho, Roland Chinedu, Marlene Babucke
Chinedu, Henry Igboanusi, Roksana Batkowska

Defendant: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland —
Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on
the rights of citizens of the Union and their family members to
move and reside freely within the territory of Member States
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Direc-
tives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC,
75/34/EEC,
and
93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Spouse who is a non-EU
national — National
the host Member State
making the right of residence of family members subject to
prior lawful residence in another Member State

legislation of

90/364/EEC,

90/365/EEC

75/35/EEC,

Operative part of the judgment

1. Directive 2004/38/EC of

and

1612/68

72/194/EEC,

the European Parliament and of

repealing Directives
73/148/EEC,

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
the Member States amending Regulation (EEC)
territory of
64/221/EEC,
No
68/360/EEC,
75/34/EEC,
75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC
precludes legislation of a Member State which requires a national
of a non-member country who is the spouse of a Union citizen
residing in that Member State but not possessing its nationality to
have previously been lawfully resident in another Member State
before arriving in the host Member State, in order to benefit from
the provisions of that directive.

2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning
that a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a
Union citizen residing in a Member State whose nationality he
does not possess and who accompanies or joins that Union citizen
benefits from the provisions of that directive, irrespective of when
and where their marriage took place and of how the national of a
non-member country entered the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 June 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles
Protodikeio Kerkyras — Greece) — Vassilakis Spyridon,
Petros Grammenos, Nikolaos
Theodoros Gkisdakis,
Grammenos, Theodosios Grammenos, Maria Karavassili,
Eleftherios Kontomaris, Spyridon Komninos, Theofilos
Mesimeris, Spyridon Monastiriotis, Spyridon Moumouris,
Nektaria Mexa, Nikolaos
Pappas, Christos Vlachos,
Alexandros Grasselis, Stamatios Kourtelesis, Konstantinos
Poulimenos, Savvas Sideropoulos, Alexandros Dellis,
Ignatios Koskieris, Dimitiros Daikos,
Michail Zervas,

Christos Dranos v Dimos Kerkyras

(Case C-364/07) (1)

(Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure —
Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agree-
ment on fixed-term work — Successive fixed-term employment
contracts in the public sector — Concepts of ‘successive
contracts’ and ‘objective reasons’
justifying the renewal of
such contracts — Measures intended to prevent abuse —
Sanctions — Settlement at national level of disputes and grie-
vances — Scope of the obligation to interpret national law in
conformity with Community law)

(2008/C 236/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Kerkyras

Parties

Applicants: Vassilakis Spyridon, Theodoros Gkisdakis, Petros
Grammenos, Nikolaos Grammenos, Theodosios Grammenos,
Maria Karavassili, Eleftherios Kontomaris, Spyridon Komninos,
Theofilos Mesimeris,
Spyridon
Moumouris, Nektaria Mexa, Nikolaos Pappas, Christos Vlachos,
Alexandros Grasselis, Stamatios Kourtelesis, Konstantinos Pouli-
menos, Savvas Sideropoulos, Alexandros Dellis, Michail Zervas,
Ignatios Koskieris, Dimitiros Daikos, Christos Dranos

Spyridon Monastiriotis,

Defendant: Dimos Kerkyras (Municipality of Corfu)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikeio
Kerkyras [Corfu Court of First Instance] — Interpretation of
Clause 5(1) and (2) of
the Annex to Council Directive
1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agree-
ment on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP
(OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Employment contracts entered into
with public authorities — Concept of objective reasons justi-
fying the renewal, without restriction, of successive fixed-term
contracts — Concept of successive contracts