Case C-111/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February 2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappĳ B.V.
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, claim, damages, interpretation of the law, legal action, redemption

C 134/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

8 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on
7 March 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumificio S. Rita
S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hygrade Foods
Limited, on the following question:

2.

As a matter of Community law, does Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 (1) read with Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1107/96 (2) and the specification for the PDO (3)‘prosciutto
di Parma’ create a valid Community right, directly enforceable
in the court of a member state, to restrain the retail sale as
‘Parma ham’ of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams
duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions
of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged
and labelled in accordance with the specification?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
for agricultural products and foodstuffs (JO L 208, 24.07.1992,
p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
the registration of geographical indications and designations of
origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (JO L 148, 21.06.1996, p. 1).

(3) (protected designation of origin).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February
2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch
Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V.

(Case C-111/01)

(2001/C 134/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 February 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v
Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V. on the following questions:

1. Does the concept of

‘the same cause of action’

in
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention extend also to the
defence of the defendant that he has extinguished a part
of the claim sued for by extra-judicial set-off, where the
part of this counterclaim that is allegedly not extinguished
is the subject-matter of a legal dispute between the same
parties on the basis of an action that has already been
brought earlier in another Contracting State?

In the examination of the question whether ‘the same
cause of action’ has been brought, are exclusively the
pleadings of the plaintiff in the proceedings initiated by a
later action decisive and the defences and submissions of
the defendant therefore irrelevant, in particular also the
defence of the procedural objection of set-off concerning
a claim that is the subject-matter of a legal dispute
between the same parties on the basis of an action that
has already been brought earlier in another Contracting
State?

3. Where, on the basis of an action to enforce a contract
seeking damages for unlawful termination of a long-term
obligation, the question as to whether such a long-term
obligation existed at all is decided, is that decision also
binding in subsequent proceedings between the same
parties?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4
No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited com-
pany of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport &
Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene
Lauritsen

(Case C-112/01)

(2001/C 134/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 9 March 2001 by the
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministe-
riet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), (2) Public limited company of
11/9 1996, and (3) AT.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition,
represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen, on the
following questions:

Question 1

Must the provisions in Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the
Customs Code) and in Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2)
(the implementing regulation), in particular Article 379(1) of
the implementing regulation, be construed as meaning that a
customs debt arising by reason of an offence or irregularity
in connection with external Community transit cannot be
recovered by the office of departure from the principal in so
far as the principal did not, before the end of the eleventh
month following the date of registration of the Community
transit declaration, receive the notification referred to in
Article 379 of the implementing regulation?