Case C-87/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/73/EC — Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC — Organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)
Date: 2008-09-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, financial legislation, investment company, national implementing measure, provision of services

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/13

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the
mutual recognition of
their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1) —
Specific training required to practise as a general practitioner

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as
Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/2003 which are not in
compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive
93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates
and other evidence of formal qualifications, as amended by Directive
2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
14 May 2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a
European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of
employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour intro-
duce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has
obligations under
to
failed
Article 16(1) of that directive;

fulfil

its

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 September
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Czech Republic

(Case C-87/08) (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/73/EC —
Measures implementing Directive 2004/39/EC — Organisa-
tional requirements and operating conditions for investment
firms — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period)

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

Parties

(2008/C 301/25)

Language of the case: Czech

(Case C-70/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2003/72/EC — Statute for a European Cooperative Society —
the
Involvement of employees in the decision-making of

society — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Dejmek, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, acting as
Agent)

(2008/C 301/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C.
Schiltz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
transpose Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August
the European
2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of
Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational require-
ments and operating conditions for
firms and
defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (OJ 2006 L 241,
p. 26).

investment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions
necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of
22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Coop-
erative Society with regard to the involvement of employees
(OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25)

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Direc-
tive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for
investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Direc-
tive, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 53(1) of that directive;

C 301/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

2. Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

impute liability to make good the compensation for the
environmental damage in a particular form to the person
who owns the property rights and/or operates an under-
taking on the contaminated site, without having to assess in
advance either whether there is a causal
link between the
conduct of that person and the occurrence of the contamina-
tion or the subjective requirement of intent or negligence?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on
21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and
Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-378/08)

(2008/C 301/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

Questions referred

1. Do the ‘polluter pays’ principle (Article 174(2)

(formerly
Article 130r(2)) of the Treaty of the European Communities)
and the provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April
2004, referred to above, preclude national legislation which
allows the public authorities to require private undertakings
— merely owing to the fact that they currently carry on their
activities in an area which has been contaminated for a long
time or borders on an area which is historically contami-
nated — to implement rehabilitation measures, irrespective
of whether or not any preliminary investigation has been
carried out to identify the party responsible for the pollu-
tion?

2. Do the ‘polluterpays’ principle (Article 174(2)

(formerly
Article 130r(2) of the Treaty of the European Communities)
and the provisions of Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April
2004, referred to above, preclude national legislation which
allows the public authorities to impute liability to make good
the environmental damage in a particular form to the person
who owns the property rights and/or carries on commercial
activities on the contaminated site without having to assess
in advance whether
link between the
conduct of that person and the occurrence of the contamina-
(namely,
tion, by virtue merely of that person's ‘situation’
that of being an operator whose activities are carried on
inside the site)?

there is a causal

3. Do the provisions of Community law in Article 174(2)
the European
(formerly Article 130r(2) of
Communities) and Directive 2004/35/EC (2) of 21 April
2004 preclude national
legislation which, overriding the
‘polluter pays’ principle, allows the public authorities to

the Treaty of

Directive

93/97/EC

and
[cited above] preclude national

4. Do the Community competition principles laid down in the
Treaty establishing the European Community and Directive
2004/18/EC (3),
Directive
898/665/EC (4)
legislation
which allows the public authorities to award to private
persons (Società Sviluppo SpA and Sviluppo Italia Aree
Produttive SpA) the activities of characterisation and of plan-
ning and performing cleaning up operations — or more
correctly, the carrying out of public works — in areas owned
by the State directly, without carrying out in advance the
necessary public tendering procedures?

(1) OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.
(2) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.
(3) OJ 2004 L 290, p. 1.
(4) OJ 2004 L 395, p. 33.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on
21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and
Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

(Case C-379/08)

(2008/C 301/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

Questions referred

1. Does the Community directive on compensation for environ-
mental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004
and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude
national legislation which allows the authorities to require, as
‘reasonable methods of remedying environmental damage’,
works on the environmental matrices (here, consisting of the
construction of a physical barrier for the groundwater along
from and supplementary to
the entire seafront) different
those selected in advance following special preliminary
discussions with the parties, already approved, implemented
or in the course of being implemented?