Case C-180/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerichts Wien lodged on  7 April 2006  — Renate Ilsinger v Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of Schlank & Schick GmbH)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: commercial law, consumer protection, contract, distance selling, interpretation of the law, purchase

C 165/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules
for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive
98/30/EC (OJ L 176, p. 57)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gerichts Wien lodged on 7 April 2006 — Renate Ilsinger v
Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of
Schlank & Schick GmbH)

(Case C-180/06)

(2006/C 165/21)

Language of the case: German

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market
in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, the Grand-
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive;

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Applicant: Renate Ilsinger

(1) OJ C 281 of 12.11.2005.

Defendant: Martin Dreschers (administrator in the insolvency of
Schlank & Schick GmbH)

Questions referred

Appeal brought on 21 March 2005 by Theodoros Papou-
lakos against the order of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) made on 26 November 2001 in Case T-248/01
Theodoros Papoulakos v Italian Republic and Commission
of the European Communities

(Case C-215/05 P)

(2006/C 165/20)

Language of the case: Greek

1. Does the provision in Paragraph 5j of

selling), BGBl

the Konsumen-
tenschutzgesetz (Law on consumer protection; KSchG),
in the version of Art I, para. 2 of the
BGBl 1979/140,
Fernabsatz-Gesetz
I
(Law on distance
1999/185, which entitles certain consumers to claim from
undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won by them
where the undertakings send (or have sent) them prize noti-
fications or other similar communications worded so as to
give the impression that they have won a particular prize,
constitute, in circumstances where the claiming of that prize
was not made conditional upon actually ordering goods or
placing a trial order and where no goods were actually
ordered but the recipient of the communication is neverthe-
less seeking to claim the prize, for the purposes of Council
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters (‘the regulation’ (1) a
contractual, or equivalent, claim under Article 15(1)(c) of
the regulation?

Parties

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative:

Appellant: Theodoros Papoulakos (represented by: D. Koutou-
valis, dikigoros)

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic and Commission
of the European Communities

2. Does a claim falling under Article 15(1)(c) of the regulation
arise if the claim for payment of the prize was not made
conditional upon ordering goods but the recipient of the
communication has actually placed an order for goods?

By order of 2 February 2006, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber)
dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.

(1) OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001, p. 1.