Case C-368/05 P: Appeal brought on  5 October 2005  by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group against the order made on  22 July 2005  by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-376/04 between Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), Norway, action for annulment (EU), admissibility, approximation of laws, chemical product, dangerous substance, free movement of goods, labelling, right to justice

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/7

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-4/05 SA: Alt Ylmy – Ömümcilik Paydarlar
Jemgyyeti v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Austria), made by decision of 13 June 2005, received at the
Court on 17 June 2005,
in the proceedings concerning
Telekom Austria AG, formerly Post & Telekom Austria AG —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta,
President of the Chamber, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis,
Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 6 October 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities)

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no
jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Telekom-Control-
Kommission in its decision of 13 June 2005.

(2006/C 10/14)

(Language of the case: French)

(1) OJ C 205 of 20.08.2005

In Case C-4/05 SA: application for authorisation to serve a
garnishee order on the Commission of the European Commu-
nities brought on 9 March 2005 by Alt Ylmy — Ömümcilik
(Turkmenistan)
Paydarlar Jemgyyeti, established in Ashgabat
(lawyer: R. Nathan) against Commission of
the European
Communities (Agents: J-F. Pasquier and E. Manhaeve) — the
Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the
Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puis-
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
sochet and A. Ó Caoimh,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 October
2005, the operative part of which is as follows

1. There is no need to adjudicate on this case.

2. Each party is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-256/05: reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Telekom-Control-Kommission in Telekom Austria AG,
formerly Post & Telekom Austria AG (1)

(Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction
of the Court — Reference to the Court — Electronic commu-
nications — Networks and services — Common regulatory
framework — Market for transit services)

(2006/C 10/15)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-256/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Telekom-Control-Kommission

Appeal brought on 5 October 2005 by Polyelectrolyte
Producers Group against the order made on 22 July 2005
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-376/04 between
Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Council of the Euro-
pean Union and Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case C-368/05 P)

(2006/C 10/16)

(Language of the case: English)

An appeal against the order made on 22 July 2005 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-376/04 between Polyelectrolyte Produ-
cers Group and Council of the European Union and Commis-
sion of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October
2005 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, established in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by Messrs Koen Van Maldegem and
Claudio Mereu, avocats.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 22 July

2005 in Case T-376/04;

— declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-376/04 admis-

sible;

— rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to

the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

— order the Council of the European Union and the Commis-
sion of the European Communities to bear all costs and
expenses of both proceedings.

C 10/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the Order of the Court of First
Instance dismissing its application as inadmissible should be set
aside on the following grounds:

(a) the Order infringes the Court's duty to state reasons;

(b) the Court of First Instance has erred in its legal assessment

of the facts of the case;

(c) the Order infringes the right to complete and effective judi-

cial protection, and the right to a fair hearing.

subject to the application of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
the award of public service contracts. (1) For that reason in
was necessary in this case to follow the competition proce-
dure in accordance with the provisions of that directive, in
particular the publication of the appropriate contract notice
in the Official Journal of the European Communities within the
meaning of Article 11 and Article 15(2) of that directive.

3. Moreover, according to the applicant, the Italian authorities
did not provide sufficient information to allow it to be
considered that, given the overall arrangement of the legal
relationships
and the
company which received the contract, as well as the activ-
ities of that company, the awarding of the contract in ques-
tion here relates solely to in-house providing and is there-
fore outside the scope of application of the Community
directives governing the award of public contracts.

existing between the Comune

Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(1) OJ L 209, p. 1.

(Case C-371/05)

(2006/C 10/17)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by X. Lewis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

that

— Declare that by virtue of the fact

the Comune di
Mantova awarded, directly and without prior publication of
the appropriate contract notice in the Official Journal of the
European Communities, the contract for the management,
maintenance and development of the in-house IT services
to the company A.S.I. S.p.A., the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/50/EEC, in par-
ticular Articles 11 and 15(2) thereof;

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof, Germany, by order of that court of 26 July 2005
in A Brünsteiner GmbH v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG

(Case C-376/05)

(2006/C 10/18)

(Language of the case: German)

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Following a complaint, the Commission became aware of
the contract concluded on 2 December 1997, by which the
Comune di Mantova (municipality of Mantova) awarded,
directly and without prior publication of the appropriate
contract notice, the contract for the management, mainte-
nance and development of its in-house IT services to a
company in which it holds an interest, Azienda Servizi
Informativi (‘A.S.I.’) S.p.A. The award was for a period of 15
years, ending on 31 December 2012.

2. The Commission takes the view that

the award to the
company A.S.I. S.p.A. of the contract for the Comune di
Mantova's IT services constitutes a public service contract

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Bundesgerichtshof,
Germany, of 26 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on
12 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A Brünsteiner GmbH and Bayerische Motorenwerke
AG on the following questions:

1. Is the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 (1) on the application of
Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor
vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Regulation
(EC) No 1475/95’) to be interpreted so that the need to re-
organise the whole or a substantial part of the network and
the resulting right of the supplier to terminate agreements
with dealers in its distribution network, on one year's
notice, can also arise because the entry into force of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July
2002 (2) on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to
categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in