Case C-237/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern (Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment and management — Fixing of limit values — Entitlement of a third party, whose health has been impaired, to have an action plan drawn up)
Date: 2008-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, atmospheric pollutant, interpretation of the law, pollution control, public health

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/3

Re:

Re:

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Conten-
cioso-Administrativo de Madrid — Interpretation of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
ment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Urban road projects in densely
populated areas or concerning landscapes of historical, cultural
or archaeological significance — Whether subject to an assess-
ment procedure having regard to their nature, size and effect —
Applicability of the criteria in the judgment of the Court in
Case C-332/04 Commission v Spain

Operative part of the judgment

it provides for environmental

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as
amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be
interpreted as meaning that
impact
assessment of refurbishment and improvement projects for urban roads,
either where they are projects covered by point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I
to the directive, or where they are projects covered by point 10(e) of
Annex II or the first indent of point 13 thereof, which are likely, by
if appropriate, having
virtue of
regard to their interaction with other projects, to have significant effects
on the environment.

their nature, size or location and,

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 C.A.S. v Commis-
sion dismissing the application for partial annulment of
Commission Decision REC 10/01 of 18 October 2002 relating
to a claim for remission of import duties recovered post-clear-
ance on fruit juice concentrates from Turkey imported under
certificates of origin which had proved to be false in a subse-
quent check — Omissions and errors on the part of the Turkish
authorities and the Commission capable of creating a special
situation within the meaning of Article 239 of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Distribu-
tion of the burden of proof as to the existence of a special situa-
tion — Legal classification of the documents and facts

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February

2007 in Case T-23/03 CAS v Commission;

2. Annuls Article 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 18 October

2002 (REC 10/01);

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs at both instances.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 July 2008 —
C.A.S. SpA v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-204/07 P) (1)

(Appeals — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Community
Customs Code — Repayment and remission of import duty —
Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey — Movement certificates
— Falsification — Special situation)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Dieter Janecek v
Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-237/07) (1)

(2008/C 236/04)

Language of the case: German

(Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment and
management — Fixing of limit values — Entitlement of a
third party, whose health has been impaired, to have an action
plan drawn up)

Parties

(2008/C 236/05)

Language of the case: German

Appellant: C.A.S. SpA (represented by: D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
the European
Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and S. Schønberg,
acting as Agents, assisted by M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

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