Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05), Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) (Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Reorganisation of the network — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Article 4(1) — Hardcore restrictions — Consequences)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: after-sales service, commercial contract, contract terms, exclusive distribution agreement, interpretation of the law, motor car, restriction on competition

C 331/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof, Germany) — A. Brünsteiner GmbH (C-376/05),
Autohaus Hilgert GmbH (C-377/05) v Bayerische Motoren-
werke AG (BMW)

(Joined Cases C-376/05 and C-377/05) (1)

(Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor
vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95
— Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Reorganisa-
tion of the network — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 — Article 4(1) — Hardcore restrictions — Conse-
quences)

meaning of that provision. It is for the national courts or arbitra-
tors to determine, in the light of all the evidence in the case before
them, whether that is the position.

2) On a proper

construction of Article 4 of Regulation No
1400/2002, once the transitional period provided for by Article
10 of that regulation has expired, the block exemption under that
regulation did not apply to contracts satisfying the conditions for
block exemption under Regulation No 1475/95 which had as
their object at least one of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article
4, with the result that all the contractual terms restrictive of compe-
tition contained in such contracts were liable to be caught by the
prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, if the conditions for
exemption under Article 81(3) EC were not satisfied.

(2006/C 331/26)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A. Brünsteiner GmbH, Autohaus Hilgert GmbH

Defendant: Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of the first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the applica-
tion of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor
vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145 p.
25) and of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3)
of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) —
Termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier, due to
the need to re-organise the whole of the network because of a
change in Community legislation

Operative part of the judgment

1) The entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 2002 of
31 July 2002 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty
to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the
motor vehicle sector did not, of itself, require the reorganisation of
the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the
first indent of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3)
of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and
servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may,
in the
light of the particular nature of the distribution network of each
supplier, have required changes that were so significant that they
must be regarded as representing a true reorganisation within the

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-390/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EC) No 2037/2000 — substances that deplete the ozone
layer)

(2006/C 331/27)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Defendant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou,
Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ment of Articles 16(5) and (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No
2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ
2000 L 244, p. 1) — Recovery, recycling, reclamation and
destruction of controlled substances — Failure to determine
minimum qualification requirements for the personnel respon-
to the Commission on the
sible — Failure
programmes related to the level of qualification required

to report