Case C-273/06: 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 (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — 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)
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: after-sales service, industrial restructuring, interpretation of the law, motor car, sale, selective distribution agreement

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