Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  13 October 2005  in Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München Scania Finance France SA v Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. (Brussels Convention — Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Meaning of  duly served )
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

recognition is sought has not officially objected, in accordance with
the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol.

(First Chamber)

(1) OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht München Scania Finance France SA
v Rockinger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH
& Co. (1)

(Brussels Convention — Recognition and enforcement —
Grounds for refusal — Meaning of ‘duly served’)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

(2005/C 296/09)

(Language of the case: German)

in Case C-9/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in criminal proceedings
against Geharo BV (1)

(Directive 88/378/EEC — Toys — Directive 91/338/EEC —
Maximum cadmium content permitted)

In Case C-522/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant
to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters,
from the Oberlandesgericht München
(Germany), made by decision of 31 October 2003, registered at
the Court on 15 December 2003 in the proceedings pending
before that court between Scania Finance France SA and Rock-
inger Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co., —
the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R.
and M.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

Ilešič,

Article 27 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession
of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October
1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996
on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden, and the first paragraph of Article IV of
the Protocol annexed to that convention, must be interpreted as
meaning that, where a relevant international convention is applicable
between the State in which the judgment is given and the State in
which recognition is sought, the question whether the document insti-
tuting the proceedings was duly served must be determined in the light
of the provisions of that convention, without prejudice to the use of
direct transmission between public officers, where the State in which

(2005/C 296/10)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-9/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article
234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands),
made by decision of 23 December 2003, received at the Court
on 12 January 2004, in criminal proceedings against Geharo
BV — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schie-
mann and E. Levits,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which
it:

Declares that, the second sentence of Article 1 of Council Directive
91/338/EEC of 18 June 1991 amending for the 10th time Directive
76/769/EEC on the approximation of
the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions
substances and
on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
preparations is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude
the prohibition in that Directive of the marketing of products with a
cadmium content in excess of an authorised maximum amount from
applying to toys covered by Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May
1988 on the approximation of
the Member States
concerning the safety of toys.

the laws of

(1) OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.