Case C-169/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dental medicine, health service, institution of public utility, interpretation of the law, right of establishment

C 155/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

Action brought on 20 March 2007 — European Parliament
v Council of the European Union

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.
Vitro and M. Moore, Agents)

(Case C-155/07)

(2007/C 155/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A.
Baas and D. Gauci, Agents)

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 (1) of
21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contri-
butions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to
2010);

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.
Arpio Santacruz, M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, Agents)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

— Annulment, for infringement of the EC Treaty, of Council
Decision 2006/1016/EC (1) of 19 December 2006 granting
a Community guarantee to the European Investment Bank
against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects
outside the Community

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament relies on one single plea in law in
support of its action, alleging the incorrect choice of legal basis
the contested decision. Since that decision essentially
for
concerns the developing countries among the countries eligible
or potentially eligible for European Investment Bank financing
under Community guarantee, it should have been adopted on
the joint basis of Articles 179 EC and 181a EC, and not solely
on the basis of Article 181a EC, which precludes cooperation
with developing countries from its scope.

(1) OJ 2006 L 414, p. 95.

The European Parliament relies on one plea in law in support of
its action, alleging the incorrect choice of legal basis for the
contested Regulation. Since the measures provided for by that
in respect of
regulation concern Community allocations
economic and social cohesion, they should have been adopted
on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 159 EC and not
on that of Article 308 EC, which can be used only if no other
provision of the Treaty confers on the Community institutions
the necessary power to adopt the act in question.

(1) OJ 2006 L 409, p. 86 and corrigendum — OJ 2007 L 36, p. 31.

a

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 March 2007
— Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Wiener
Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung

ruling

(Case C-169/07)

(2007/C 155/15)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 26 March 2007 — European Parliament
v Council of the European Union

Referring court

(Case C-166/07)

(2007/C 155/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Klavina and L.
Visaggio, Agents)

Defendant: Wiener Landesregierung and Oberösterreichische
Landesregierung

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/9

Questions referred

1. Does Article 43 EC (in conjunction with Article 48 EC)
preclude the application of national legislation under which
authorisation is required to set up a private hospital in the
form of an independent outpatient clinic for dental medicine
(dental clinic) and that authorisation is to be refused if,
according to the stated purpose of the institution and the
range of services envisaged, there is no need for the planned
outpatient dental clinic having regard to the existing provi-
sion of care by established doctors working on a contractual
basis with sickness funds,
institutions owned by sickness
funds and institutions contracted to sickness funds and by
established dentists working on a contractual basis with sick-
ness funds?

2. Is the answer to Question 1 any different if the existing
provision of care by outpatient clinics of public, private non-
profit making and other hospitals working on a contractual
basis with sickness funds is also to be included in the exami-
nation as to need?

a

for

from the
preliminary
Reference
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged
on 2 April 2007 — Emirates Airlines Direktion für
Deutschland v Diether Schenkel

ruling

lishing common rules on compensation and assistance to
passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation
or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/
91 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘a flight’ includes in
any event the flight from the point of departure to the destina-
tion and back in the case where the outward and return flights
are booked at the same time?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords
(United Kingdom) made on 2 April 2007 — Riunione
Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS) v West Tankers Inc.

(Case C-185/07)

(2007/C 155/17)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-173/07)

(2007/C 155/16)

Referring court

House of Lords

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland

Defendant: Diether Schenkel

Question referred

Is Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 estab-

Applicant: Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS)

Defendant: West Tankers Inc.

Question referred

Is it consistent with EC Regulation 44/2001 (1) for a court of a
Member State to make an order to restrain a person from
commencing or continuing proceedings in another Member
State on the ground that such proceedings are in breach of an
arbitration agreement?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (OJ L 12, p. 1).