Case C-211/06P: Appeal brought on  9 May 2006  by Herta Adam against the judgment delivered on  22 February 2006  by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, appeal, equal treatment, rights of civil servants

C 165/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság

tices which differentiate between commercial companies
with respect to the exercise of their rights, according to
the Member State in which their registered office is situ-
ated, is incompatible with Community law?

Question(s) referred

1.

2.

3.

Is a court of second instance which has to give a decision
on an appeal against a decision of a commercial court
in proceedings to amend a registration,
(cégbíróság)
entitled to make a reference for a preliminary ruling
under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, where neither
the action before the commercial court nor the appeal
procedure is inter parties?

In so far as an appeal court is included in the concept of
‘court or tribunal which is entitled to make a reference
for a preliminary ruling’ under Article 234 of the Treaty
of Rome, must that court be regarded as a court against
whose decisions there is no judicial remedy, which has
an obligation, under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome,
to submit questions on the interpretation of community
law to the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities?

Does a national measure which,
in accordance with
national law, confers a right to bring an appeal against
an order for a preliminary reference, limit the power of
the Hungarian courts to refer questions for a preliminary
ruling or could it limit that power — derived directly
from Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome — if, in appeal
proceedings the national superior court may amend the
order, render the request for a preliminary ruling inop-
erative and order the court which issued the order for
reference to resume the national proceedings which had
been suspended?

4. A. If a company, constituted in Hungary under Hungarian
company law and entered in the Hungarian commercial
register, wishes to transfer its registered office to another
Member State of the European Union, is the regulation
of this field within the scope of Community law or, in
the absence of the harmonisation of laws, is national law
exclusively applicable?

B. May a Hungarian company request transfer of its regis-
tered office to another Member State of the European
Union relying directly on community law (Articles 43
and 48 of the Treaty of Rome)? If the answer is affirma-
tive, may the transfer of the registered office be made
subject to any kind of condition or authorisation by the
Member State of origin or the host Member State?

C. May Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty of Rome be inter-
preted as meaning that a national rules or national prac-

Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by Herta Adam against the
judgment delivered on 22 February 2006 by the Court of
in Case T-342/04 Herta
First Instance (First Chamber)

Adam v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-211/06P)

(2006/C 165/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant:Herta Adam (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-
N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342 Herta Adam
v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety;

— Annul the Commission's decision of 22 September 2003
refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allow-
ance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations of officials of the European Communities;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of appeal and at first

instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is based on the allegation that the Court of First
Instance erred in law in interpreting the concept of ‘circum-
stances arising from work done for another State’ set out in the
second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regu-
lations.