Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:774
Date: 2006-12-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Free movement of capital
Concepts: Free movement of capital and freedom of payments;General
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

summary of the pleas in law upon which the action is based’. Article 42(2) provides that, ‘No new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure. If in the course of the procedure one of the parties puts forward a new plea in law which is so based, the President may, even after the expiry of the normal procedural time limits, acting on a report of the Judge Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, allow the other party time to answer that plea. The decision on the admissibility of the plea shall be reserved for the final judgment’. 98 – In contrast, for example, in Banco Populare di Cremona, footnote 94 above, and Meilicke, footnote 96 above, the Italian and German governments included substantial argument on the temporal limitation issue in their original written submissions. 99 – Case C‑270/83 Commission v French Republic [1986] ECR‑273.