Case C-302/06: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling of the Krajský súd v Prešove, Slovak Republic) — František Koval'ský v Mesto Prešov, Dopravný podnik Mesta Prešov, a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Property law — Electrical installations on private land without compensation for the owners — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, adoption of a law by vote, civil law, international law, interpretation of the law, ownership

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/11

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht
Wien, Austria) — Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH v Toyota
Frey Austria GmbH

that entry into force may, in relation to the specific organisation of
the distribution network of each supplier, necessitate changes that
are so substantial that they constitute a real reorganisation of the
network within the meaning of that provision.

(Case C-273/06) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — Competition — Distribution agreement relating to
motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC)
No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier
— Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 —
Need to reorganise the distribution network)

(2007/C 82/21)

Language of the case: German

the contractual goods and, secondly,

2. The putting in place by a supplier after the entry into force of
Regulation No 1400/2002 of a selective distribution system under
which, first, the dealers are no longer restricted to a territory on
which they may sell
the
their activities to only providing
authorised repairers may limit
repair and maintenance services is capable of constituting a reorga-
nisation of the distribution network within the meaning of first
indent of
the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation
No 1475/95. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to deter-
mine whether that is the case, in the light of all the evidence in the
specific case and, in particular, of the evidence submitted to this end
by the supplier.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH

Defendant: Toyota Frey Austria GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien —
Interpretation of the first indent of the first subparagraph of
Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of
28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty
to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
agreements (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 25) and 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
sector
(OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) — Termination of a distribution agree-
ment by the supplier on one year's notice on the ground that
reorganisation of the whole or a substantial part of the network
is needed owing to the entry into force of Regulation (EC)
No 1400/2002

the motor

concerted

practices

vehicle

in

Operative part of the order

1. The entry into force 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 does not in itself make it necessary to reor-
ganise the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of
the first
subparagraph 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,

indent of

the first

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling of the Krajský súd v
Prešove, Slovak Republic) — František Koval'ský v Mesto
Prešov, Dopravný podnik Mesta Prešov, a.s.

(Case C-302/06) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol to the Conven-
tion on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms — Property law — Electrical
installations on
private land without compensation for the owners — Lack of
jurisdiction of the Court)

(2007/C 82/22)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties

Applicant: František Koval'ský

Defendants: Mesto Prešov, Dopravný podnik Mesta Prešov, a.s.

Intevernors: Zuzana Petrová, Ondrej Valla

C 82/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove —
Interpretation of Article 6 EU and Article 1 of the Protocol to
the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms, signed in Paris on 20 March 1952 — Prop-
erty law — National legislation under which electrical installa-
tions may be placed on private land without the owners being
entitled to compensation

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no juris-
diction to answer the questions referred by the Krajský súd v Prešove V
by decisions of 2 May and 21 July 2006.

(1) OJ C 249 of 14.10.2006.

Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-503/06)

(2007/C 82/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, since the Regione Liguria has adopted and
applies rules concerning authorisation to derogate from the
system of protection for wild birds which fail to satisfy the
of Directive
conditions
79/409/EEC (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under Article 9 of that directive.

in Article

down

laid

9

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following receipt of a complaint, the Commission was apprised
of the fact that the Regione Liguria had approved Law No 34 of
October 2001 for the purpose of regulating procedures for the
adoption of derogations from the system of protection for wild
birds provided for under Article 9 of the abovementioned direc-
tive. That regional law was amended by Regional Law No 31 of
13 August 2002.

In the Commission's opinion, Regional Law No 34/2001, as
amended, authorises the lawful hunting of bird species protected
under that directive in so far it:

— identifies generally and in the abstract and without any time
limitation the species which are subject to the derogation,
whereas the derogation constitutes an exceptional regulatory
measure to be adopted upon verification that certain condi-
tions of a scientific nature are met;

— does not lay down an obligation, as regards individual dero-
gation measures, to state one of the abstract reasons why it
is possible to grant a derogation under Article 9 of the
directive and does not lay down an obligation to explain the
practical reason why a particular measure is dictated by the
need relied upon as an abstract reason.

— it fails to provide that checks are to be made to ensure that
no other satisfactory solutions are available or to provide
any indication of the authority empowered to declare that
the conditions under Article 9 of the directive are satisfied.

The fact that Regional Law No 34/2001, as amended, is incom-
patible with the directive is reflected in the specific measures
authorising hunting, which fail to establish that no other satis-
factory solutions are available and fail to mention either the
abstract reason for which or the specific grounds on which the
derogation is necessary.

On 31 October 2006, after the expiry of the period prescribed
in the reasoned opinion, the Regione Liguria repealed Regional
Law No 34/2001, as amended, by Regional Law No 35/2006 of
31 October 2006 and adopted Regional Law No 36/2006,
which authorises hunting derogations that disclose the same
incompatibilities with Article 9 of the abovementioned directive
as those complained of above relating to the earlier regional
legal framework.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 concerning the

conservation of wild birds, OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Genova (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2007 — Autostrada
dei Fiori SpA, AISCAT, Associazione Nazionale dei Gestori
delle Autostrade v Government of the Italian Republic,
Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Ministry of the
Economy and Finance and Azienda Nazionale Autonoma
delle Strade (ANAS)

(Case C-12/07)

(2007/C 82/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova