Case C-93/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms tingsrätt — Finland) — Teemu Hakala v Oy L. Simons Transport Ab (Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the answer to which admits of no reasonable doubt — Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 — Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport — Payments to wage-earning drivers related to distances covered — Prohibition of such a pay scheme unless it does not endanger road safety)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, remuneration of work, road transport, transport staff

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/19

Order of the Court of 28 September 2006 — Unilever
Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd, formerly Van den Bergh Foods Ltd
v Commission of the European Communities, Masterfoods
Ltd, Richmond Ice Cream Ltd, formerly Richmond Frozen
Confectionery Ltd

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms
tingsrätt — Finland) — Teemu Hakala v Oy L. Simons
Transport Ab

(Case C-552/03 P) (1)

(Case C-93/05) (1)

(Appeal — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles
81 EC and 82 EC) — Ice creams for immediate consumption
— Supply of freezer cabinets to retailers — Exclusivity
clause — Right to a fair hearing — Burden of proof)

(2006/C 294/31)

Language of the case: English

(Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of
Procedure — Question the answer to which admits of no
reasonable doubt — Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 —
Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road
transport — Payments to wage-earning drivers related to
distances covered — Prohibition of such a pay scheme unless
it does not endanger road safety)

(2006/C 294/32)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Unilever Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd (formerly Van den
Bergh Foods Ltd) (represented by: M. Nicholson and M. Rowe,
Solicitors, M. Biesheuvel and M. De Grave, advocaten)

Referring court

Korsholms tingsrätt

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: W. Wils, B. Doherty and A.
Whelan, Agents), Masterfoods Ltd (represented by: P. Collins
and M. Levitt, Solicitors), Richmond Ice Cream Ltd, formerly
Richmond Frozen Confectionery Ltd (represented by: I. Forrester
QC)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case T-65/98 Van den
Bergh Foods Ltd (formerly HB Ice Cream Limited) v Commis-
sion — Dismissal of an action for annulment of Commission
Decision of 11 March 1998 relating to a proceeding under
Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/
34.395 and IV/35.496 — Van den Bergh Foods Limited) prohi-
biting the practice of making freezer cabinets available to retai-
lers exclusively for the storage of ice creams produced by the
applicant

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Unilever Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd shall pay the costs.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Teemu Hakala

Defendant: Oy L. Simons Transport Ab

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korsholms tingsrätt —
Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of
certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L
370, p. 1) — Payments to a wage-earning driver based on
distances covered

Operative part of the order

A pay scheme based on distances covered is contrary to Article 10 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on
the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road trans-
port, unless such a scheme is of a kind as not to endanger road safety.
It is for the national court to ascertain, in view of all the circum-
stances of the case in the main proceedings, whether that is the case.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.03.2004.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005