Case C-1/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber
Date: 2004-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial solvency, interpretation of the law

C 71/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.3.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in
respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber

(Case C-1/04)

(2004/C 71/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 November 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 2 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber on the following question:

Does the court of the Member State which receives a request
for the opening of insolvency proceedings still have jurisdiction
to open insolvency proceedings if the debtor moves the centre
of his or her main interests to the territory of another Member
State after filing the request but before the proceedings are
opened, or does the court of that other Member State acquire
jurisdiction?

Action brought on 16 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Finland

(Case C-13/04)

(2004/C 71/14)

An action against
the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 January 2004 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to enact
national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty
and clarity as regards the second subparagraph of
Article 7(1) of Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging
and packaging waste (1) and has failed to ensure that the
above obligation is applied in practice;

2. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for implementing the directive ended on
30 June 1996. The Republic of Finland has not enacted
national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty and
clarity as regards the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of
Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
and has not ensured that the above obligation is applied in
practice.

(1) European Parliament

and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 365
of 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko
Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-
ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against
Hellenic Republic

(Case C-23/04)

(2004/C 71/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance, Athens) of
30 September 2003, received at
the Court Registry on
26 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sphakianakis AEBE against Hellenic Republic on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 31(2) of Protocol 4 (appended to the
Europe agreement establishing an association between
the European Communities and their Member States, of
the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other
part) impose an obligation of mutual cooperation on the
customs authorities of the Member State of importation
to take into account decisions of the Hungarian courts
concerning the validity of
the investigations carried
out by the authorities of the exporting State into the
correctness of the EUR.1 certificate in light of the fact
that:

(a)

(b)

the Hungarian authorities duly informed the cus-
toms authorities of the importing State concerning
the results of
the investigation initially carried
out concerning the inaccuracy of certain export
certificates, stressing none the less that the validity
of the investigation formed the subject matter of
proceedings pending before the Hungarian courts
and

the Hungarian authorities officially communicated
to the customs authorities of the importing State the
outcome of those proceedings, that is to say the
decisions of the abovementioned courts whereby it
was finally ascertained that a number of EUR.1
certificates were accurate;