Case C-430/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias by order of that court of  31 August 2005  in Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipirision Mikhanografisis (Dionik A.E.) and Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, advertising malpractice, civil liability proceedings, interpretation of the law, issue of securities, securities, stock-exchange listing

C 60/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

3. The Court of First

Instance further erred in law in
concluding that even if the plea were admissible, the Court
of First Instance was confined to reviewing the legality of
the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM on the basis
of the factual and legal decision as it was before the Board
of Appeal. The Applicant contends that this is a misapplica-
tion of the legal position and that the Court of First Instance
has
refused to apply its own jurisprudence
concerning genuineness of use.

in effect

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales), by Order of
that court of 23 November 2005 in 1) The International
Transport Workers' Federation 2) The Finnish Seamen's
Union v 1) Viking Line ABP 2) OU Viking Line Eesti

(Case C-438/05)

(2006/C 60/34)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1-36.

(Language of the case: English)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias by order of that court of 31 August 2005 in
Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/I, Logismikou & Paro-
khis Ipirision Mikhanografisis (Dionik A.E.) and Ioannis
Mikhail Pikoulas v Epitropi Kefalaiagoras

(Case C-430/05)

(2006/C 60/33)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
(Council of State, Greece) of 31 August 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 2 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Dionik Anonimi Etairia Emporias I/
I, Logismikou & Parokhis Ipirision Mikhanografisis (Dionik
A.E.) and Ioannis Mikhail Pikoulas and the Epitropi Kefalaia-
goras (Capital Market Commission) on the following question:

In the light of Article 21 of Directive 2001/34/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council on the admission of securi-
ties to official stock exchange listing and on information to be
published on those securities (OJ 2001 L 184, p. 1), can a
national legislature lay down, for cases where the information
recorded in listing particulars proves to be inaccurate or
misleading, administrative penalties imposable not only upon
the persons expressly mentioned in those particulars as respon-
sible but also upon the issuer of the securities being admitted
to listing on a stock exchange and, indiscriminately, upon the
members of its board of directors, regardless of whether the
board members have been identified as responsible in the
abovementioned sense?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by Order of the Court of Appeal (Civil Divi-
sion) (England and Wales) of 23 November 2005, received at
the Court Registry on 6 December 2005, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between 1) The International Trans-
port Workers' Federation 2) The Finnish Seamen's Union and
1) Viking Line ABP 2) OU Viking Line Eesti, on the following
questions:

Scope of the free movement provisions

into a

that undertaking to enter

1) Where a trade union or association of trade unions takes
collective action against a private undertaking so as to
collective
require
bargaining agreement with a trade union in a particular
Member State which has the effect of making it pointless
for that undertaking to re-flag a vessel in another Member
State, does that action fall outside the scope of Article 43
of the EC Treaty and/or Regulation 4055/86 (1) by virtue
of the EC's social policy including, inter alia, Title XI of the
EC Treaty and, in particular, by analogy with the Court's
reasoning in Case C-67/96 Albany [1996] ECR I- 5751,
paras 52-64?

Horizontal direct effect

2) Do Article 43 of the EC Treaty and/or Regulation 4055/86
have horizontal direct effect so as to confer rights on a
private undertaking which may be relied on against
another private party and, in particular, a trade union or
association of trade unions in respect of collective action
by that union or association of unions?

Existence of restrictions on free movement

that undertaking to enter

3) Where a trade union or association of trade unions takes
collective action against a private undertaking so as to
require
collective
bargaining agreement with a trade union in a particular
Member State, which has the effect of making it pointless
for that undertaking to re-flag a vessel in another Member
State, does that action constitute a restriction for the
purposes of Article 43 of the EC Treaty and/or Regulation
4055/86?

into a