Case C-386/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — First indent of Article 5(1)(b) — Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question — Sale of goods — Goods delivered in different places within a single Member State)
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, delivery, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 140/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW

Defendant: Leden van de Ministerraad

which the Court of First Instance partially dismissed the action
seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 5083 final
of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81
EC — Cartel in the specialty graphite market

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Arbitragehof — Interpretation of Council
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the
European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between
Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Whether compatible
with Article 34(2)(b) EU — Removal of the requirement of
double criminality in respect of the offences listed in Article 2
(2) of the Decision — Whether compatible with Article 6(2) EU

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

affecting

Examination of the questions submitted has revealed no factor capable
of
Framework Decision
2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant
and the surrender procedures between Member States.

Council

validity

the

of

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007
the European
— SGL Carbon AG v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-328/05 P) (1)

(Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and
concerted practices — Guidelines on the method of setting
fines — Leniency Notice — Principle non bis in idem)

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 May 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof — Austria) — Color Drack GmbH v Lexx
International Vertriebs GmbH

(Case C-386/05) (1)

(Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — First indent of Article 5(1)
(b) — Court for the place of performance of the contractual
obligation in question — Sale of goods — Goods delivered in
different places within a single Member State)

(2007/C 140/07)

Language of the case: German

(2007/C 140/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Color Drack GmbH

Appellant: SGL Carbon AG (represented by M. Klusmann and F.
Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities
Schneider, W. Mölls and H. Gading, Agents,)

the European
(represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M.

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in SGL Carbon v Commission
in
(Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03),

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recogni-
tion and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Place to
which goods were delivered under a contract of sale — Multiple
places of delivery

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/5

Operative part of the judgment

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs

The first indent of Article 5(1)(b) 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 must be
interpreted as applying where there are several places of delivery within
a single Member State. In such a case, the court having jurisdiction to
hear all the claims based on the contract for the sale of goods is that
for the principal place of delivery, which must be determined on the
basis of economic criteria. In the absence of determining factors for
establishing the principal place of delivery, the plaintiff may sue the
defendant in the court for the place of delivery of its choice.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 May 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-391/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2003/4/EC — Freedom of access to information — Environ-
to transpose within the
mental

information — Failure

prescribed period)

(2007/C 140/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Lawunmi and U. Wölker, Agents),

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary
to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to
environmental
information and repealing Council Directive
90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental
information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, Ireland
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

(1) OJ C 249, 02.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 May 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Belgium

(Case C-407/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Protection
of workers — Major accident hazards involving dangerous
substances — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
period)

(2007/C 140/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven,
Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on
the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous
substances (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

necessary

provisions

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative
comply with Directive
2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the
control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances,
the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

to

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281 of 18.11.2006.