Case C-457/06 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2006 by the Republic of Finland against the order of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appeal, customs debt, interpretation of the law

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/43

undertaking against a Member State such that it has at least
six months from the time when it could have known that a
contract award infringed procurement
law to bring legal
proceedings before the competent national authority to seek
damages following the contract award on account of an
infringement of Community procurement law, while it must
be allowed additional time for periods when it could not
make such a claim owing to the absence of a statutory basis
in national law, in circumstances where under national law
claims for damages based on infringements of national law
are normally subject to a limitation period of three years
from the date of knowledge of the wrongdoer and of the
damage and, in the absence of legal protection in a particular
area of law, the limitation period does not (continue to) run?

(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

possible for third parties to make use of items of copy-
right-protected works without the grant of user involving
a transfer of de facto power to dispose of those items?

(b) Is there a distribution under Article 4(1) of the Informa-
tion Society Directive also in the case in which items of
copyright-protected works are shown publicly without
the possibility of using those items being granted to third
parties?

2. If

the answers are in the affirmative: can the protection
accorded to the free movement of goods preclude,
in the
abovementioned cases, exercise of the distribution right if
the items presented are not under copyright protection in
the Member State in which they were manufactured and
placed on the market?

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgericht-
shof lodged on 16 November 2006 — Peek & Cloppenburg
KG v Cassina S.p.A.

(Case C-456/06)

(2006/C 326/87)

Language of the case: German

Appeal brought on 16 November 2006 by the Republic of
Finland against the order of 5 September 2006 in Case T-
350/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-457/06 P)

(2006/C 326/88)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Republic of Finland (represented by E. Bygglin)

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG

Respondent: Cassina S.p.A.

Questions referred

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

1.

(a) Can it be assumed that there is a distribution to the
public in any manner other than by sale, within the
terms of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001
on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and
related rights in the information society (1) (‘the Informa-
in the case where it is made
tion Society Directive’),

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities of 5 September 2006 in Case T-350/05
Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Communities
and declare the action brought by Finland under Article 230
EC admissible and remit the main proceedings to the Court
of First
in which the Commission should be
ordered to reimburse Finland also the costs incurred in the
appeal proceedings

Instance,

C 326/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Question referred

Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance
infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by
considering that the contested decision of the Commission did
not constitute a decision against which an action may be
brought within the meaning of Article 230 EC.

In Finland's view, the contested decision of the Commission
constitutes a decision against which an action may be brought
within the meaning of Article 230. By its decision the Commis-
sion in fact denied Finland the opportunity to make a condi-
tional payment within the meaning of the case-law of the Court
of Justice.

The contested decision thus has binding legal effects on Finland,
as required in the case-law on the application of Article 230 EC,
which affect Finland's interests and clearly change Finland's legal
position. The contested decision also caused Finland a loss of
rights and is thus clearly adverse to Finland.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance made several
errors of law in assessing the case and as a result reached a deci-
sion contrary to Community law.

Is the alcohol contained in cooking wine to be classified as ethyl
alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Council
Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation
of
the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic
beverages? (1)

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)
lodged on 17 November
2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet +
Minne SPRL

(Case C-460/06)

(2006/C 326/90)

Language of the case: French

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regerings-
rätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v
Gourmet Classic Ltd

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Referring court

(Case C-458/06)

(2006/C 326/89)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nadine Paquay

Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Gourmet Classic Ltd

Questions referred

1. Must Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19
October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant
workers (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) be interpreted as
only prohibiting the notification of a decision of dismissal
during the period of protection referred to in paragraph 1 of
that article or does it also prohibit taking a decision of
dismissal and attempting to find a permanent replacement
for the employee before the end of the period of protection?