Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

2.9.2006

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/15

Parties to the main proceedings

Cross-appellant: Ministère public

Appellants: Daniel Pierre Raymond Escalier (C-260/06) and Jean Louis François Bonnarel (C-261/06)

Question referred

Where a Member State makes the importation of a plant protection product from another Member State in which the product has already been authorised to be placed on the

market in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC ( 1 ) subject to

a simplified procedure for such authorisation in order to verify

that the product imported meets the identity requirements laid down in Case C-100/96 The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd

[1999] ECR I-1499, is that Member State entitled to make an operator subject to that simplified authorisation procedure if:

— the importer is a farmer who is importing the product solely for the needs of his own farm, which are manifold but limited in quantity, and is therefore not placing it on the market in the commercial sense which that concept implies;

— the simplified marketing authorisation procedure consti- tuting import authorisation is personal to each operator/ distributor, who is required to give the product imported its own brand name and is subject to a charge of EUR 800?

If the reply to the first question is negative, can the judgment

in Case C-212/03 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-4213 relating to personal imports of medicinal products by indivi-

duals be applied to the case of plant protection products imported by farmers solely for the needs of their own farms?

( 1 ) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

Reference

for a preliminary

ruling

from the

Bundesver-

waltungsgericht

(Germany)

lodged

on

15

June

2006

Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Case C-262/06)

(2006/C 212/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred

1. Are the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory frame- work for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC ( 2 ) 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) to be understood as meaning that a statutory requirement provided for under earlier national law for the authorisation of charges for the supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an under- taking with a dominant position in that market, and hence an administrative measure confirming that requirement, should be temporarily maintained?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

2. Does

European

continuation?

Community

( 1 ) ( 2 )

OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33. OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

law

preclude

such

extensive

Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-265/06)

(2006/C 212/27)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

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

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

C 212/16

EN
EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Form of order sought

— Declare that by prohibiting pursuant to Article 2(1) of Decree-Law no 40/2003 of 11 March 2003 the affixing of coloured film on windows of motor vehicles the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement, as that prohibition hinders the marketing in Portugal of coloured film lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State or in a State signatory to the EEA Agreement;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prohibition laid down in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law no 40/2003 of 11 March 2003 constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports, contrary to Article 28 EC and Article 11 of the EEA Agree- ment, as it hinders in practice the marketing in Portugal of coloured film lawfully manufactured and /or marketed in

another Member State or in a State signatory to the EEA Agree- ment. It is also not justified under Article 30 EC and Article 13

of the EEA Agreement.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Labour Court (Ireland) made on 19 June 2006 — Impact v Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Trans- port

(Case C-268/06)

(2006/C 212/28)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Labour Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Impact

Defendant: Minister for Agriculture and Food, Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Minister for Transport

Questions referred

Question 1

In deciding a case at first instance under a provision of domestic law or in determining an appeal against such a deci- sion, are the Rights Commissioners and the Labour Court required by any principle of Community law (in particular the principle of equivalence and effectiveness) to apply a directly effective provision of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28th June 1999 concerning the framework agreement of fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP ( 1 ) in circumstances where:

— The Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court have not been given express jurisdiction to do so under the domestic law of the Member State including the provisions of domestic law transposing the Directive,

— Individuals can pursue alternative claims arising out of a failure by their employer to apply the Directive to their individual circumstances before the High Court and

— Individuals can pursue alternative claims before an ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction against the Member State seeking damages for loss suffered by them arising from the Member States failure to transpose the Directive on time?

Question 2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the Affirmative,

(a)

Is Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by indivi- duals before their national courts?.

(b)

Is Clauses 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by indivi- duals before their national courts?

Question 3

Having regard to the Court's answers to Question 1 and Ques- tion 2(b) does clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on Fixed-Term Work concluded by ETUC, UNIC and CEEP annexed to Directive 1999/70/EC preclude a Member State, acting in its capacity as an employer, from renewing a fixed term contract of employment for up to 8 years in the period after the said Directive should have been transposed and before the transposing legislation was enacted in domestic law where:

— on all previous occasions the contract had been renewed for shorter periods, and the employer requires the services of the employee for the extended period,

— the renewal for the extended period has the effect of circumventing the application to an individual of the full benefit of Clause 5 of the Framework Agreement when transposed into domestic law, and