Case C-217/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, exclusive distribution agreement, exclusive purchasing agreement, fuel, inter-company agreement, interpretation of the law, motor fuel, retail outlet

C 193/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

Does it follow from Community law (in particular from Article
7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community) that
the Federal Republic of Germany is precluded from excluding a
national of that State who lives in another Member State and is
in minor employment (between 3 and 14 hours a week) in
Germany from receiving German child-raising allowance
because she does not have a residence or habitual place of stay
in Germany?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition1968 (II), p. 475.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Irish planning law provides that participation fees can be
charged to members of the public by planning authorities and
by a planning appeals board for submitting observations or
expressing opinions in planning procedures and for submitting
observations in planning appeals. The Commission submits
that the levying of such participation fees constitutes a breach
of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC,
on the following grounds:

— no express provision of the directive permits the levying of

such fees;

— such fees are contrary to the scheme and purpose of the

directive;

Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

— the wording of Article 6(2) and (3) of the directive does not
allow for the latitude in interpretation that Ireland seeks to
give it, and;

(Case C-216/05)

(2005/C 193/17)

(Language of the case: English)

— Ireland impedes the rights given to the public under Article

6(2) of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40
(2) OJ L 73, 14.03.1997, p. 5

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr
Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by making the full and effective participation of
the public in certain environmental
impact assessments
subject to prior payment of participation fees, Ireland has
failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 6 and 8
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
the effects of certain public and private
assessment of
projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (2),

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in
Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de
Servicio v Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA

(Case C-217/05)

(2005/C 193/18)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)
of 3 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de
Servicio and Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA on the
following questions:

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/11

de Lyon of 7 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19
May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Jean Auroux and Others and Commune de Roanne — Inter-
vener: Société d'équipement du département de la Loire, on the
following questions:

1. Does a contract under which one contracting authority
engages a second contracting authority to carry out a devel-
opment project for a purpose of general interest, pursuant
to which contract that second contracting authority is to
deliver works to the first which are intended to meet its
needs, and at the end of which such of the other land and
works as have not been disposed of to third parties vest
automatically in the first contracting authority, constitute a
public works contract within the meaning of Article 1 of
Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993, (1) as amended?

2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is it neces-
sary,
in assessing the threshold of 500 000 000 special
drawing rights imposed by Article 6 of the same directive,
to take into account only the price paid in return for the
delivery of the works to the contracting authority, or the
sum of that price and the contributions paid, even if the
latter are only partly allocated to the execution of those
works, or the total value of the works, with assets not
disposed of at the end of the contract vesting automatically
in the first contracting authority and the latter
then
pursuing the execution of ongoing contracts and assuming
the debts incurred by the second contracting authority?

3. If the answer to both questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative,
can the first contracting authority, when entering into such
a contract, dispense with the procedures for awarding
public works contracts laid down in that directive, on the
grounds that that contract can be awarded only to certain
legal persons and that
those same procedures will be
applied by the second contracting authority when awarding
its public works contracts?

(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
1993 L 199, p. 54).

Must Articles 10 to 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
1984/83 (1) of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article
85(3) of the Treaty [now Article 81 EC] to categories of exclu-
sive purchasing agreements be construed as meaning that they
include within their scope contracts for the exclusive distribu-
tion of motor-vehicle and other fuels which are nominally clas-
sified as commission or agency contracts and which contain
the following clauses?

(A) The service-station proprietor undertakes to sell the suppli-
er's motor-vehicle and other fuels in accordance with the
retail prices, conditions, and sales and business methods
stipulated by the supplier.

(B) The service-station proprietor assumes the risk associated
with the products as soon as he receives them from the
supplier in the storage tanks at the service station.

(C) Once he has received the products, the proprietor assumes
the obligation to keep the products in the conditions
necessary to ensure that they undergo no loss or deteriora-
tion and is liable, where applicable, both to the supplier
and to third parties for any loss, contamination or adultera-
tion which may affect the products and for any damage
arising as a result thereof.

(D) The service-station proprietor

required to pay the
supplier the cost of the motor-vehicle and other fuels nine
(9) days after the date of their delivery to the service
station.

is

(1) OJ L 173 of 30.6.1983 ; EE 08/02, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Administratif de Lyon (France) by judgment of that court
of 7 April 2005 in the case Jean Auroux and Others v
Commune de Roanne — Intervener: Société d'équipement
du département de la Loire

(Case C-220/05)

(2005/C 193/19)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Administratif