Case C-383/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), imprisonment, interpretation of the law

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?