Case C-14/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie und Handelskammer Berlin, intervener: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU act, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, official language

C 56/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

Action brought on 18 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Council of the European Union

(Case C-13/07)

(2007/C 56/40)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgericht-
shof (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2007 — Ingenieur-
büro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie und
Handelskammer Berlin, intervener: Nicholas Grimshaw &
Partners Ltd

(Case C-14/07)

(2007/C 56/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P.J. Kuijper and M. Huttunen, Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Council and the Member States
establishing the Community's and the Member States' posi-
tion within the General Council of the World Trade Organi-
zation on the accession of the Socialist Republic of Viet
Nam to the World Trade Organization (COM/2005/0659
final-ACC 2006/0215);

— declare that the effects of the annulled decision are defini-

tive;

— order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The proposal submitted by the Commission was based on
article 133, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the EC Treaty in conjunction
with the second subparagraph of article 300(2) thereof. The
Council added article 133(6) to the legal basis and consequently
a formally separate decision of
the
Governments of Member States meeting within the Council was
adopted. Thus, the Council and the Member States adopted
‘jointly’ the position of the Community and its Member States
as foreseen by the last sentence of article 133(6), second sub-
paragraph.

the Representatives of

The Commission's choice of
the legal basis was decided
according to the parameters established by the case-law of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities, which are the
aim and the content of the act. In particular, it was based on
the appreciation that
falls within
the content of
article 133(1) and (5), which establishes an exclusive compe-
tence, and that consequently recourse to article 133(6) was not
necessary. The Commission believes that the decision should be
annulled as far as this aspect of its legal basis is concerned.

the act

Appellant on a point of
Partner GbR

law: Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Industrie und Handels-
kammer Berlin

Intervener: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd.

Questions referred

1. Must Article 8(1)

of Council Regulation (EC) No
1348/2000 (1) of 29 May 2000 on the service in the
Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil
or commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as
meaning that an addressee does not have the right to refuse
to accept a document pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Regu-
lation if only the annexes to a document to be served are
not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a
language of the Member State of transmission which the
addressee understands?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

the Regulation be interpreted as
Must Article 8(1)(b) of
meaning that the addressee ‘understands’ the language of a
Member State of transmission within the meaning of that
regulation because, in the exercise of his business activity, he
agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence
was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of
transmission?

3. If the answer to the second question is in the negative:

Must Article 8(1) of
the Regulation be interpreted as
meaning that the addressee may not in any event rely on
that provision in order to refuse acceptance of such annexes
to a document, which are not in the language of the Member
State addressed or in a language of the Member State of
the
transmission which the
addressee concludes a contract in the exercise of his business
activity in which he agrees that correspondence is to be
conducted in the language of the Member State of transmis-
sion and the annexes transmitted concern that correspond-
ence and are written in the agreed language?

addressee understands,

if

(1) OJ L 160, 2000, p. 37.