Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2002 in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, data processing, fundamental rights, interpretation of the law, protection of privacy, publication of accounts

C 233/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.9.2002

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 June 2002

in Case C-248/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Hermann Pfanner Getränke
GmbH and Others, Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others (1)

(Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Reference for a
preliminary ruling — Disclosure of annual accounts and
annual report — Maintenance of a register of companies —
Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2002/C 233/18)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-248/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Regional Court, Feldkirch)
(Austria), for a preliminary ruling in proceedings before that
Landesgericht brought by Hermann Pfanner Getränke GmbH
and Others and Getränkebetrieb GmbH and Others on the
validity and interpretation of the First Council Directive 68/
151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards
which, for the protection of the interests of members and
others, are required by Member States of companies within the
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty,
with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout
the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41)
and of the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual
accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11)
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
made an order on 14 June 2002, in which it ruled:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
jurisdiction to answer the questions put by the Landesgericht Feldkirch
in its order of 22 June 2001.

( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

Action brought on 29 May 2002 by the European Parlia-
ment against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun
Alliance Belgium

(Case C-199/02)

(2002/C 233/19)

An action against Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA,
Commercial General Norwich Union and Royal Sun Alliance
Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 29 May 2002 by the European
Parliament, represented by D. Petersheim and O. Caisou-
Rousseau, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

order the defendants to reimburse the European Parlia-
ment the costs of repairing the storm damage caused to
its Alucobond panels on 26 December 1999, amounting
to EUR 1 194 378,43 together with interest on account
of late payment;

order Chubb to reimburse the European Parliament
expert’s fees amounting to EUR 2 200,64 together with
interest on account of late payment;

3.

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought on the basis of an arbitration clause.
The applicant takes the view that the defendant insurance
companies are not entitled to rely upon an exclusion clause
set out under the heading ‘storms and hailstorms’
in the
supplementary general conditions of the contract of insurance.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that
court dated 27 June 2002, in the case of Halifax plc, Leeds
Permanent Development Services Ltd, County Wide
Property Investments Ltd against Commissioners of Cus-
toms and Excise

(Case C-255/02)

(2002/C 233/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties