Case C-168/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid — Spain) — Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL (Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Failure to raise the unfair nature of a term during arbitration proceedings — Possibility of raising that objection in the context of an action brought against the arbitration award)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), arbitration, consumer protection, contract, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/9

Operative part of the Judgment

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.

by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of
such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
229/96 of 7 February 1996, is to be interpreted as not precluding an
exporter from providing evidence by other means where it is unable to
provide in support of
its export declaration documentary evidence
relating to the quantities of products actually used in the manufacture
of exported goods, even in a case of force majeure. The national autho-
rities are to assess that other means of evidence, in accordance with the
detailed rules laid down in the national law, provided, however, that
those rules do not affect either the scope or effectiveness of Community
law. For that purpose, national authorities must also take into consid-
eration documents previously exchanged with the exporter when the
application is made under the simplified procedure provided for in the
third subparagraph of Article 3(2) of that regulation.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanz-
gericht Hamburg — Germany) — Heinrich Schulze GmbH
& Co. KG i.L. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.

(Case C-120/05) (1)

(Export refunds — Conditions for granting — Export declara-
tion — Lack of documentary evidence — Use of other types of
evidence)

(2006/C 326/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L.

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Provincial de Madrid — Spain) — Elisa María Mostaza
Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL

(Case C-168/05) (1)

(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Failure to raise the unfair nature of a term during arbitra-
tion proceedings — Possibility of raising that objection in the
context of an action brought against the arbitration award)

(2006/C 326/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of
the third subparagraph of Article 7(2) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the
refunds on certain agricultural
system of granting export
products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex
II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such
refunds (OJ 1994 L 136, p. 5) — Exporter unable to fulfil the
obligation to provide the competent authorities, in support of
its declaration, with all documents and information regarded by
those authorities as appropriate — Documents destroyed by
force majeure — Possibility of using other types of evidence.

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elisa María Mostaza Claro

Defendant: Centro Móvil Milenium SL

Re:

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on
certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de
Madrid — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of, and point
1(q) of the annex to, Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p.
29) — Adequate and effective means to prevent the use of
terms — Invalidity of an arbitration agreement not
unfair
pleaded by the consumer during the arbitration proceedings

C 326/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

by the termination of an establishment's activities where that is
the result of a judicial decision — Meaning

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a national
court seised of an action for annulment of an arbitration award must
determine whether the arbitration agreement is void and annul that
award where that agreement contains an unfair term, even though the
consumer has not pleaded that invalidity in the course of the arbitra-
tion proceedings, but only in that of the action for annulment.

(1) OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September
2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arios
Pagos — Greece) — G. Agorastoudis v Goodyear Hellas
AVEE

(Joined Cases C-187/05 to C-190/05) (1)

(Collective redundancies — Directive 75/129/EEC — Article 1
(2)(d) — Termination of an establishment's activities as a
result of a judicial decision — Termination of an establish-
ment's activities of the employer's own volition)

(2006/C 326/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Arios Pagos (Greece)

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redun-
dancies must be interpreted as being applicable in the case of collective
redundancies that result from the definitive termination of the operation
of an undertaking or establishment which has been decided on by the
employer of his own accord without a prior judicial decision, and the
exception laid down in Article 1(2)(d) of that directive cannot preclude
its application.

(1) OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale
Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — K. Tas-Hagen, R.A. Tas
v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad

(Case C-192/05) (1)

(Benefit awarded to civilian war victims by a Member State
— Condition of residence in the territory of that State at the
time when the application for the benefit is submitted —
Article 18(1) EC)

(2006/C 326/21)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

(C-187/05),
Applicants: Georgios Agorastoudis
Ioannis Panou and Others (C-188/05), Kostantinos Kotsampou-
gioukis and Others (C-189/05), Georgios Akritopoulos and
Others (C-190/05)

and Others

Defendant: Goodyear Hellas AVEE

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: K. Tas-Hagen, R.A. Tas

Intervening
parties: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas
(GSEE), Ergatoipalliliko Kentro Thessalonikis (C-187/05 and C-
189/05)

Defendant: Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkerings-
raad

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arios Pagos — Interpreta-
tion of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17
February 1975 on the approximation of
the
Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1975 L
48, p. 29) — Inapplicability of the directive to workers affected

the laws of

Preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Grant of a
benefit by a Member State to civilian war victims — Benefit
reserved for nationals of the Member State in question who are
resident in that Member State at the time when the application
is submitted — Whether compatible with Article 18 EC