Case C-226/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the case of REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet
Date: 2002-09-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: disc drive, interpretation of the law, statistical nomenclature

14.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 22 March 2002

in Case C-24/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Commerce, Marseille) Marseille Fret SA v
Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd (1)

(Brussels Convention — Protocol concerning the interpret-
ation by the Court of Justice of the Convention — Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 — National courts which may request the
Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings — Manifest lack
of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2002/C 219/01)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-24/02: reference to the Court from the Tribunal de
Commerce, Marseille (France), for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Marseille
Fret SA and Seatrano Shipping Company Ltd — on the
interpretation of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978
of the Kingdom of Denmark, of Ireland and of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 — amended text — p. 77), the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
accession of
the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and the Convention of
29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
(OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1) and of Council Regulation (EC)

No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Administrator, for the Registrar, has made
an order the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no
jurisdiction to reply to the question referred to it by the Tribunal de
Commerce, Marseille, by judgment of 22 January 2002.

(1) OJ C 97, 2002.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by order of that Court of 4 June 2002 in the case of
REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet

(Case C-226/02)

(2002/C 219/02)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Regional Court) (Denmark) of 4 June 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 17 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of REMEDAN af 1985 ApS against Skatteministeriet
(Danish Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following question:

C 219/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.9.2002

Is a CD-ROM drive which is equipped with a jack for
headphones, a volume control button and a button to insert
and remove CDs, but which cannot by itself reproduce
graphics, audio, data and text, to be classified for the period
1 January 1995 to 21 November 1995 under heading
8521 90 00 in accordance with classification practice laid
down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 (1), or
under heading 8471 93 51 in accordance with the classifi-
cation practice laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2491/96 (2) and the decision adopted by the Harmonized
System Committee of
the World Customs Organization
(Doc. 40.260 E and Doc. 40.600 E)?

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2564/95 of 27 October 1995
concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined
nomenclature (OJ L 262 of 1.11.1995, p. 25).

( 2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2491/96 of 23 December 1996
amending Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 14).

Question 2:

In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:

Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting
authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review
procedure that the contracting authority would have been
bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the
finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer
submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the
right to bring a review procedure?

(1) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case
of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom & Partner, 3.
Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against Hauptver-
band der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt (Austria) by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in
the review procedure between Grossmann Air Service
GmbH & Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria)

(Case C-229/02)

(2002/C 219/03)

(Case C-230/02)

(2002/C 219/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Public Procurement Office) of 14 May 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of 1. Tenderer: debis/AC, 2. ARGE Telekom
& Partner, 3. Tenderer: SIEMENS AUSTRIA CARD against
Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger
on the following questions:

Question 1:

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Public Procurement Office) of , received at the Court
Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
review procedure between Grossmann Air Service GmbH &
Co KG and the Bund (Republic of Austria) on the following
questions:

Question 1:

Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works
contracts to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to
institute a review procedure?

Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
ment procedure?