Case C-356/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) (Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC — Injuries to the passengers of a vehicle — Part of a vehicle not adapted for the carriage of seated passengers)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, third-party insurance

C 96/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo, Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Empresas
(ASEMFO) v Transformación Agraria SA,
Forestales

Administración del Estado

(Case C-295/05) (1)

Tragsa, which enables it, as a public undertaking acting as an instru-
ment and technical service of several public authorities,
to execute
operations without being subject to the regime laid down by those
directives, since, first, the public authorities concerned exercise over that
undertaking a control similar to that which they exercise over their
own departments, and, second, such an undertaking carries out the
essential part of its activities with those same authorities.

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility —
Article 86(1) EC — No independent effect — Factors permit-
ting material which enables the Court to give a useful answer
to the questions referred — Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC
and 93/37/EEC — National
legislation enabling a public
undertaking to perform operations on the direct instructions
of the public authorities without being subject to the general
rules for
the award of public procurement contracts —
Internal management structure — Conditions — The public
authority must exercise over a distinct entity a control similar
to that which it exercises over its own departments — The
distinct entity must carry out the essential part of its activities
with the public authority or authorities which control it)

(2007/C 96/15)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

(1) OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Ireland — Ireland) — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, Minister
for the Environment, Ireland, Attorney General, Motor
Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

(Case C-356/05) (1)

(Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor
vehicles — Directives
and
90/232/EEC — Injuries to the passengers of a vehicle — Part
of a vehicle not adapted for the carriage of seated passengers)

72/166/EEC,

84/5/EEC

(2007/C 96/16)

Language of the case: English

Applicant: Asociación Nacional
(ASEMFO)

de

Empresas

Forestales

Referring court

Defendants: Transformación Agraria SA, Administración del
Estado

High Court of Ireland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo —
Interpretation of Article 86(1) EC and Directives 93/36/EEC,
93/37/EEC, 97/52/EC, 2001/78/EC and 2004/18/EC coordi-
nating procedures for the award of public supply, works, and
service contracts — Compatibility of a national law granting to
a public undertaking a legal regime which allows it to execute
public works outside the procedures provided for the award of
public contracts

Operative part of the judgment

for

Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
nation of procedures
contracts,
93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award
of public
supply contracts and 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
contracts do not preclude a body of rules such as that governing

the award of public

service

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Elaine Farrell

Defendants: Alan Whitty, Minister for the Environment, Ireland,
Attorney General, and Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

Re:

Preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of
Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May
1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use
of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — Persons travelling
as passengers in a part of a vehicle which is not intended for the
carriage of passengers and is not equipped with seating for that
purpose — National
legislation which does not make such
persons subject to compulsory insurance in the event of an acci-
dent

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/11

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May
1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
motor vehicles is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
whereby compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance does not cover
liability in respect of personal
injuries to persons travelling in a
part of a motor vehicle which has not been designed and
constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.

2. Article 1 of Third Directive 90/232 satisfies all the conditions
necessary for it
to produce direct effect and accordingly confers
rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the national
courts. However, it is for the national court to determine whether
that provision may be relied upon against a body such as the
Motor Insurers' Bureau of Ireland.

(1) OJ C 315, 10.12.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Bruxelles, (Belgium)) — De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v
Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and
Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA

(Case C-381/05) (1)

(Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative adver-
tising — Identifying a competitor or the goods or services
offered by a competitor — Goods or services satisfying the
same needs or with the same purpose — Reference to designa-
tions of origin)

(2007/C 96/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA

Respondents: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne
and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
(Brussels Court of Appeal) — Interpretation of Article 2(2a) and
Article 3a(b) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September
1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and

the European Parliament and of

the Member States concerning
administrative provisions of
misleading advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by
Directive 97/55/EC of
the
Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC
concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative
advertising (OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising
— Identification of a competitor or of the goods or services
offered by a competitor — Use for advertising a beer of terms
referring to characteristics of sparkling wines and, more specifi-
cally, Champagne

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 2(2a) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September
1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising, as
amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 October 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning
that a reference in an advertisement to a type of product and not to
a specific undertaking or product can be considered to be compara-
tive advertising where it is possible to identify that undertaking or
the goods that it offers as being actually referred to by the advertise-
ment. The fact that a number of the advertiser's competitors or the
goods or services that they offer may be identified as being in fact
referred to by the advertisement is of no relevance for the purpose of
recognising the comparative nature of the advertising.

2. The existence of a competitive relationship between the advertiser
and the undertaking identified in the advertisement cannot be
established independently of the goods or services offered by that
undertaking.

In order to determine whether there is a competitive relationship
between the advertiser and the undertaking identified in the adver-
tisement, it is necessary to consider:

— the current state of the market and consumer habits and how

they might evolve,

— the part of the Community territory in which the advertising is
disseminated, without, however, excluding, where appropriate,
the effects which the evolution of consumer habits seen in other
Member States may have on the national market at issue, and

— the particular characteristics of the product which the advertiser
seeks to promote and the image which it wishes to impart to it.

The criteria for establishing the existence of a competitive relation-
ship within the meaning of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450, as
amended by Directive 97/55, are not identical to those for deter-
in
comparison
mining whether
Article 3a(1)(b) of the same directive.

condition

fulfils

the

the

3. Advertising which refers to a type of product without thereby identi-
fying a competitor or the goods which it offers is not impermissible
with regard to Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by
Directive 97/55. The conditions governing whether such adver-
tising is permissible must be assessed in the light of other provi-
sions of national
law or, where appropriate, of Community law,
irrespective of the fact that that could mean a lower level of protec-
tion for consumers or competing undertakings.