Case C-81/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the case of Eurokeramik Gesellschaft mbh & Co KG against Gemeinnützige Salzburger Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, mixed-ownership company, preliminary issue, subsidised housing, works contract

C 144/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

(Supreme Court) (Republic of Austria) of 29 January 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2002,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Herbert Karner Industrieauk-
tionen GmbH against Troostwijk GesmbH on the following
question:

Is Article 28 EC to be interpreted as precluding national
irrespective of the truthfulness of infor-
legislation which,
mation, prohibits any reference therein to the fact that the
goods come from assets in a bankruptcy, where, in public
announcements or notifications intended for a large circle of
persons, the notice given states that the goods offered for sale
are from assets in a bankruptcy although the goods in question
no longer form part of the assets in the bankruptcy?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the
case of the Greek State against Katina Petrova

(Case C-79/02)

(2002/C 144/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
Greek State against Katina Petrova on the following questions:

The preliminary questions are identical to those in Case C-78/
02.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the
case of the Greek State against Loukas Vlachos

(Case C-80/02)

(2002/C 144/22)

The preliminary questions are identical to those in Case C-78/
02.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
of 31 January 2002 in the case of Eurokeramik Gesell-
schaft mbh & Co KG against Gemeinnützige Salzburger
Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH

(Case C-81/02)

(2002/C 144/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Republic of Austria) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Eurokeramik Gesellschaft mbh & Co KG against
Gemeinnützige Salzburger Wohnbaugesellschaft mbH on the
following questions:

1. Does a social housing association established as a limited
liability company of which there are two shareholders,
each a regional or local authority, in carrying out the
objects laid down in its statutes which consist in the
provision of social housing, meet needs in the general
interest not having an industrial or commercial character,
and is the association therefore to be regarded as a body
governed by public law for the purposes of Article 1(b)
of Council Directive 93/37/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts, where it carries out its activities
with a limited intention to make a profit and is subject to
both competition generally and competition specifically
from other social housing associations, but at the same
time is supported by public funds and is subject to special
State controls?

2.

Is a national procurement law which permits contracting
authorities to exclude tenderers, without giving any
reasons,
from procurement procedures in respect of
works contracts below the Community law threshold
and within a minimal amount of up to, for example,
EUR 10 000, compatible with Community law?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
Greek State against Loukas Vlachos on the following questions:

(1) OJ L 199 1993, p. 54.