Case C-462/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Glaxosmithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, dismissal, interest in bringing an action, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, severance pay

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/45

2. Is dismissal notified after the period of protection provided
for in Article 10 of Directive 92/85, but which is not unre-
lated to the pregnancy and/or the birth of a child, contrary
to Article 2(1)
(or 5(1)) of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9
February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment,
and
training
working conditions (2), and, in such a case, must the sanction
be at least equivalent to that laid down by national law in
execution of Article 10 of Directive 92/85?

and promotion,

vocational

(1) OJ L 348, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 39, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 18 November 2006 by Elliniki Etairia
pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (AEPI).
against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) made on 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05
AEPI v Commission

(Case C-461/06P)

(2006/C 326/91)

Language of the case: Greek

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The grounds of the appeal are:

the European Communities without

(a) The decision under appeal dismissed the application and
accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commis-
sion of
taking into
account the individual right to legal protection which arises
in every case in which a citizen brings a case before a court;
his case must be judged in its entirety and to its full extent
and the decision handed down must contain sufficient and
lawful reasons.

(b) Although it is accepted that in matters of infringement of
the competition rules the Commission of
the European
Communities is recognized as having discretion as to the
action it will take, nevertheless the decision under appeal
did not examine whether the Commission remained within
the permissible limits of its discretion or exceeded those
limits, given the fact that in any event no administrative
service is allowed to act ultra vires.

(c) It was wholly impermissible for the decision under appeal
to accept that the Commission of the European Commu-
nities may act without any supervision in the area of infrin-
gement of the principles of competition and, if it is called to
account for its actions, is able to avoid doing so by simply
raising a plea of inadmissibility.

Parties

Appellant: Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idiokti-
sias (AEPI) AE (represented by: Theodoros K. Asprogerakas-
Grivas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (France) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Glaxos-
mithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre
Rouard

(Case C-462/06)

(2006/C 326/92)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— hold the appeal admissible;

— set aside the contested order No 303852 of 5 September
the European
in Case T-242/05 in its

2006 of
Communities (Fourth Chamber)
entirety;

the Court of First

Instance of

Referring court

Cour de cassation

— hear and determine our action of 4 June 2005 (pursuant to
Article 230 of the EU Treaty) before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities itself, or send it back
in
to the Court which issued the decision under appeal
order for it to be held admissible on the grounds specified.

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Glaxosmithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

Respondent: Jean-Pierre Rouard

C 326/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Question referred

Does the rule of special
jurisdiction stated in Article 6(1) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments
in civil and commercial matters (1), by virtue of which a person
domiciled in a Member State may be sued ‘where he is one of a
number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any of
them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected
that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to
avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from sepa-
rate proceedings’, apply to proceedings brought by an employee
before a court of a Member State against
two companies
belonging to the same group, one of which, being the one
which engaged that employee for the group and refused to re-
employ him, is domiciled in that Member State and the other,
for which the employee last worked in non-Member States and
which dismissed him, in another Member State, when that appli-
cant relies on a clause in the employment contract to claim that
the two defendants were his co-employers from whom he
claims compensation for his dismissal or does the rule in Article
18(1) of the regulation, by virtue of which, in matters relating
to individual contracts of employment,
jurisdiction is to be
determined by Section 5 of Chapter II, exclude the application
of Article 6(1), so that each of the two companies must be sued
before the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgericht-
shof (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2006 — FBTO
Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v Jack Odenbreit

(Case C-463/06)

(2006/C 326/93)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant on a point of law: FBTO Schadeverzeker-
ingen N.V.

Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Jack Odenbreit

Question referred

Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be under-
stood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action
directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a
Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided
that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domi-
ciled in a Member State?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 20 November 2006 —
Avena Nordic Grain Oy

(Case C-464/06)

(2006/C 326/94)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Avena Nordic Grain Oy

Defendant: Finnish Ministry of Land and Agriculture

Question(s) referred

Is Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, (1) in
conjunction with the principles of proportionality and good
administration, to be interpreted as meaning that the competent
national authority may recognise an export declaration sent as a
fax copy prior to the loading operation if it takes the view that
there is not the least suspicion of fraud, the defect in the trans-
mission of the export declaration was based on an error which
was made in connection with advice given by the authority and
the latter was able to establish that the signed original export
declaration sent subsequently was identical in every way to the
faxed copy?

(1) of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the appli-
cation of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ
1999 L 102, p. 11).