Case C-470/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 7 November 2003 in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against Finnish State and Tarmo Lehtinen
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, civil service, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, machinery, press release, product safety

C 35/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2004

2.

It is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the
existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition
of Directive 84/5 and if that defect has adversely affected Mr
Evans, to determine whether the breach of that obligation of
transposition is sufficiently serious.

(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

Is Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of
the Association Council, set up by the Agreement establishing
an Association between the European Economic Community
and Turkey, on the development of the Association (herein-
after, ‘Decision No 1/80’) to be interpreted as meaning that a
Turkish national forfeits the rights acquired under Article 6(1)
of Decision No 1/80 if he is held in custody under the
enforcement of a prison sentence for a period of three years?

Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities, lodged
on 21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH

(Case C-1/03 SA)

(2004/C 35/02)

An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH, represented by
R. Nathan, with an address for service in Luxembourg. The
applicant claims that the Court should:

Lift the Commission’s immunity so that a garnishee order
relating to the funds it holds on behalf of a judgment debtor,
in this case CESD-Communautaire a.s.b.l., may take effect,
since there is no argument in law or in fact to prevent the
Commission, the garnishee, from properly releasing to the
applicant the funds it holds provisionally.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen
käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 7 November 2003
in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against Finnish State
and Tarmo Lehtinen

(Case C-470/03)

(2004/C 35/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tampereen kärä-
jäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 7 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against
Finnish State and Tarmo Lehtinen on the following questions:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in
the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan

(1)

(Case C-383/03)

(2004/C 35/03)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of
(Administrative Court, Austria) of 4 September 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings brought by
Ergül Dogan on the following question:

Is there a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC, or a
measure which should be abstained from under the
second paragraph of Article 10 EC, if an expert official
belonging to the State’s health and safety at work
organisation who does not have decision-making power,
after a market supervision case has been raised but before
the decision in the case, expresses his opinion on the
main news programme of a national TV channel and in
daily newspapers with wide circulation and also in
commercial and labour market associations, in such a
way that his statements, direct or repeated by others, on
the hazard to health and even to life of the machinery
manufactured and marketed by a specified manufacturer
which is the subject of the market supervision case may
give the machinery negative publicity and affect
its
marketing?

7.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/3

(2)

Is machinery directive 98/37/EC (1) to be interpreted as
meaning that a car lift is contrary to the essential safety
requirements it lays down if it is not constructed in
accordance with standard SFS-EN 1493, in such a way
that in designing the structure account is not taken of the
placing of the vehicle on the lift in either driving direction
and the load calculations of each lifting arm are not done
for the least favourable loading situation?

(3)

a)

If
the question in point 1 is answered in the
affirmative, are the official’s actions described in that
question disproportionate having regard to the
legitimate aim based on the protection of human
health and life and hence contrary to the EC Treaty,
even if Question 2 were also to be answered in the
affirmative, having regard to the nature of
the
that possible
actions and in particular the fact
hazards could have been made known and the
occurrence of hazards prevented by methods other
than those described in point 1, that the actions
were taken even before the competent authority had
made a decision in the market supervision case, and
that the actions were likely in particular by being
directed to a specified product
to damage the
marketing of that product?

(b)

If the question of proportionality in point 3 is for
the national court to decide, is the main weight to
be attached to the possible non-compliance with the
European or national safety requirements or to
the circumstances of the publication of the non-
compliance with the requirements?

(4) May the actions of an official described in point 1 be
justified in the conditions described in point 3(a) on the
freedom of speech within the meaning of
basis of
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
even though they are contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30
EC or to Article 10 EC?

(5)

a)

If the actions of an official described in point 1 are
contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC or to Article 10
EC, is the breach so manifest and serious that, if the
other conditions of liability are satisfied, the State is
obliged under EC law to compensate the damage
which may have occurred thereby for the marketing
of the machinery?

(b)

Is the breach described in point 5(a) manifest and
serious even in a case where the authority/official
with decision-making competence cannot be blamed
for any fault or omission and the authority/official
has not in any connection approved the measures
or helped to bring about their actual consequences?

(c) Can Article 10 EC and in particular its second
paragraph create rights for individuals in the circum-
stances described in point 1?

(d) Can an official himself, in addition to the State, be
similarly liable under EC law, in the circumstances
mentioned in point 1, for compensation for his
actions, if they are contrary to EC law?

(e)

Is the obtaining of compensation based on EC law
impossible in practice or excessively difficult if in
accordance with national provisions compensation
for economic damage other than damage to persons
and things may be obtained only if the damage has
been caused by an act defined as criminal or in the
exercise of public authority or if in other cases there
are especially serious grounds for the awarding of
damages?

(6)

a)

If compensation is awarded under national
law
because of a breach of requirements or omission
concerning the free movement of goods, does EC
law require that the compensation to be awarded
is an effective and deterrent sanction, and is it
incompatible with the requirements of EC law
concerning liability that under national
law an
official who has committed an infringement or
omission is liable for reasonable but necessarily
full compensation and is not
for
compensation if he is culpable of only slight negli-
gence, or that an official and the State which is liable
for the official’s fault or omission may be ordered to
pay compensation for economic damage other than
damage to persons or things only if the damage has
been caused by an act defined as criminal or in the
exercise of public authority or if in other cases there
are especially serious grounds for the awarding of
compensation?

liable at all

(b)

is incompatible with EC law,

If any of the limitations of liability mentioned in
point 6(a)
is the
limitation of compensation under national law to be
disapplied with respect to the official in question
even though the official’s liability would be more
severe or more extensive than under national law?

(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to machinery (OJ L 207 of 23.07.1998, p. 1).