C 195/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 17.7.2010

With the incorporation of the European Convention of Pleas in law and main arguments Human Rights into EU jurisprudence, the Court erred in failing to consider whether the Commission's refusal to The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2008/74 expired enforce the medical monitoring provisions of Directive on 2 January 2009. 96/29 violated Article 2 of the Convention by knowingly placing the life of Appellant's brother at risk to the un- checked and un-monitored development of long term radiation cancers, such as the cancer which killed him. ( 1 ) OJ 2008 L 192, p. 51.

( 1 ) Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation OJ L 159, p. 1 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto () lodged on 10 May 2010 — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

(Case C-229/10)

(2010/C 195/17) Action brought on 7 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Language of the case: Portuguese

(Case C-223/10) Referring court (2010/C 195/16) Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto

Language of the case: German

Parties Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Adam and Applicants: Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra I. Hadjiyiannis, acting as Agents) Pendão Lapa Ferreira

Defendant: Republic of Austria Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

Questions referred Form of order sought 1. Is the interpretation of Article 505 of the Código Civil — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and (Portuguese Civil Code) which, in the case of an accident administrative provisions necessary fully to implement caused by the conduct of the pedestrian alone, excludes the Commission Directive 2008/74/EC of 18 July 2008 liability for risk posed by the use of motor vehicles, amending, as regards the type approval of motor vehicles compatible with the European directives [72/166/EEC, ( 1 ) with respect to emissions from light passenger and 84/5/EEC, ( 2) 90/232/EEC, ( 3 ) 2000/26/EC, ( 4) and 2005/ commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and access to 14/EC ( 5)] on compulsory motor vehicle insurance, and in vehicle repair and maintenance information, Directive particular with Article 1a of Directive 90/232/EEC? 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2005/78/EC, ( 1) or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; 2. Is the interpretation of Article 570 of the Código Civil, whereby compensation may be reduced or excluded according to the degree of fault of both parties, when a wrongful act of the victim has contributed to or exacerbated — order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. the loss, compatible with those directives? 17.7.2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/13

3. And, if the answer is in the affirmative, do those directives acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial preclude an interpretation which allows compensation to be sector, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission limited or reduced, having regard to the fault of the thereof, the Kingdom of the has failed to fulfil pedestrian, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the its obligations under Article 7 of that directive; motor vehicle, on the other, in the causation of the accident? — order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments ( 1 ) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi­ mation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against The period for the transposition of the Directive into national civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the law expired on 20 March 2009. enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360). ( 2 ) Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to 1 insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor ( ) OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1. vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17). ( 3 ) Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33). ( 4 ) Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Action brought on 18 May 2010 — European Commission Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the v Grand Duchy of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (Case C-246/01) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65). 5 ( ) Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the (2010/C 195/19) Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance Language of the case: French against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14). Parties Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Action brought on 11 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-233/10) Form of order sought — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and (2010/C 195/18) administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Language of the case: Dutch of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC ( 1), and in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Parties Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nienhuis and H. te Winkel) — order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands Pleas in law and main arguments The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/42/CE expired on 29 June 2008. As at the date on which the Form of order sought present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive — Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof. administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC ( 1 ) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, ( 1 ) OJ L 157, p. 24. 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of