Case C-209/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November 2008 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — The Competition Authority v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd (Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Concept of an agreement having as its object the restriction of competition — Agreement to reduce production capacity — Beef and veal)
Date: 2008-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, competitiveness, interpretation of the law, meat processing industry, production capacity

C 6/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2009

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that by maintaining provisions under which the age at
which officials have the right to receive the old-age pension varies
according to whether they are men or women, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 November
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale
Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Jacqueline Förster v
Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

1. A student in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings
cannot rely on Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the
Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in
the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that
State in order to obtain a maintenance grant.

2. A student who is a national of a Member State and travels to
another Member State to study there can rely on the first paragraph
of Article 12 EC in order to obtain a maintenance grant where he
or she has resided for a certain duration in the host Member State.
The first paragraph of Article 12 EC does not preclude the applica-
tion to nationals of other Member States of a requirement of five
years' prior residence.

3. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community
law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, does not preclude
the application of a residence requirement which makes the right of
students from other Member States to a maintenance grant subject
to the completion of periods of residence which occurred prior to the
introduction of that requirement.

(Case C-158/07) (1)

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

(Freedom of movement for persons — Student who is a
national of one Member State and goes to another Member
State to follow a training course — Student maintenance
grant — Citizenship of the Union — Article 12 EC — Legal
certainty)

(2009/C 6/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacqueline Förster

Defendant: Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep
— Interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 18 EC, Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June
1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a
Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ,
English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), and Article 3 of
Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right
of residence for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — Student
who is a national of one Member State and goes to another
Member State to follow a training course, at the same time
working as an employed person in the second Member State
but who has, meanwhile, ceased that employment.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November
2008 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court — Ireland) — The Competition Authority
v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers
(Carrigmore) Meats Ltd

(Case C-209/07) (1)

(Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Concept of an ‘agree-
ment having as its object the restriction of competition’ —
Agreement to reduce production capacity — Beef and veal)

(2009/C 6/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Competition Authority

Respondents: Beef
Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd

Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/5

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court, Ireland —
Interpretation of Article 81(1) EC — Measures limiting or
controlling production — Inclusion of an agreement whose
effect is to reduce structural capacity selectively

the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in
difficulty, the French Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 5 of that decision

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

An agreement with features such as those of the standard form of
contract concluded between the 10 principal beef and veal processors in
Ireland, who are members of Beef Industry Development Society Ltd,
and requiring, among other things, a reduction of the order of 25 %
in processing capacity, has as its object the prevention, restriction or
distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

French Republic

(Case C-214/07) (1)

(State aid — Aid scheme — Incompatibility with the common
market — Implementation of the decision — Recovery of the
aid granted — Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a
decision)

(2009/C 6/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Giolito, Agent)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues,
S. Ramet and J.-C. Gracia, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take,
within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply
with Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid
scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in diffi-
culty (State aid C(2003) 4636, OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38) — Failure
to take steps to recover the aid illegally granted — Implementa-
tion of the decision ordering the recovery of the aid not impos-
sible

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Republic of Poland

(Case C-227/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic
communications — Networks and services — Directive
2002/19/EC (Access Directive) — Article 4(1) and the first
subparagraph of Article 5(1) — Incorrect transposition)

(2009/C 6/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Shotter and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of
Poland (represented initially by:
E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, T. Nowakowski, and subsequently by
M. Dowgielewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect trans-
position of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and intercon-
nection of, electronic communications networks and associated
facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7) — National
requiring, by way of a
legislation on telecommunications
general legal provision, operators of public telecommunications
to negotiate in good faith access contracts and
networks
providing that,
if the parties do not reach an agreement, the
regulatory authority may, at the request of one of the parties,
adopt a decision which will replace the contract

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to implement within the prescribed period
Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on

1. Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 4(1) of
Directive 2002/19/EC of
the
Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of,
electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access
Directive), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that Directive;

the European Parliament and of