Case C-489/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lahr (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger
Date: 2007-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, distance selling, indemnification, interpretation of the law

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/25

Questions referred

1. Having regard to the wording, objective and nature of
Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80 (1) and to the objective and
nature of the Association Agreement (2), does that provision
contain a clear and accurately defined obligation whose fulfil-
require any supplementary
ment and effect does not
measures, it therefore being appropriate for that provision to
have direct effect?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

2.1 In the application of Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80, must
account be taken in any way of the amendments to
Regulation No 1408/71 (3), such as those which have
been made since 19 September 1980 with respect to
special benefits which are not based on the payment of
premiums or contributions?

2.2 In this connection,

the Additional
to the Association Agreement of signifi-

is Article 59 of

Protocol (4)
cance?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema
lodged on 5 November 2007 —
di Cassazione (Italy)
in Agricoltura (AGEA) v
Agenzia per

le Erogazioni

Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

(Case C-486/07)

(2008/C 22/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

3. Must Article 9 of the Association Agreement be interpreted
as precluding the application of a Member State's legislation,
such as Article 4a of the Netherlands TW, which results in
an indirect distinction being made on grounds of nationality,

Question referred

— firstly, because the number of nationals of countries
other than the Netherlands, including a large group of
Turkish nationals, who are not, or no longer, entitled to a
supplementary benefit because they are no longer resi-
is higher than such persons
dent in the Netherlands,
having Dutch nationality, and

— secondly, because the supplementary benefits of Turkish
nationals resident in Turkey have been withdrawn since
1 July 2003, whereas the phasing out of the supplemen-
tary benefits of nationals of a Member State of the EU
and of third countries, provided that they are resident in
the territory of the EU, did not begin until 1 January
2007?

‘On the basis of the EEC regulations in force at the time of the
facts of the case (1994 to 1995) on the sale of cereals held by
intervention agencies, do the price reductions laid down in
respect of the presence of a higher moisture content than that
of the standard quality apply also to the sale of maize?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia
Lahr (Germany)

Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(1) Decision 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on
the application of the social security schemes of the Member States
of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of
their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

(2) Agreement establishing an Association between the European
Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed in Ankara on
12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey on the one hand and
the Member States of the EEC and the Community on the other
hand and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Com-
munity by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963
(OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special
edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

(4) Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and
concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972
(OJ 1973 C 133, p. 17).

(Case C-489/07)

(2008/C 22/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Defendants: Stefan Krüger, SFK Laptophandel

C 22/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

Question referred

Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Poland

in conjunction with the second sentence of
Is Article 6(2)
Article 6(1) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consu-
mers in respect of distance contracts (1) to be interpreted as
precluding a provision of national law which provides that, in
the case of a revocation by a consumer within the revocation
period, a seller may claim compensation for the value of the use
of the consumer goods delivered?

(1) OJ 1977 L 144, p. 19.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Strafsachen Wien, Austria, lodged on 31 October 2007
— Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turansky

(Case C-491/07)

(2008/C 22/49)

(Case C-492/07)

(2008/C 22/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by A. Nijenhuis and K. Moyzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to ensure the proper incorporation
into national law of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European
Parliament and of
the Council of 7 March 2002 on a
common regulatory framework for electronic communica-
tions networks and services (Framework Directive) (1) and in
particular Article 2(k) with reference to the definition of a
subscriber, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive;

Language of the case: German

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Referring court

Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien

Party to the main proceedings

Vladimir Turansky

Question referred

‘Is the bar on a second prosecution for the same acts (ne bis in
idem principle) contained in Article 54 of the Convention imple-
menting the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the
Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the
Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the
gradual abolition of checks at their common borders signed in
Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990 (1) to be interpreted
as precluding the prosecution of a suspect in the Republic of
Austria for the same acts in respect of which criminal proceed-
ings in the Slovak Republic were discontinued after its accession
to the European Union by means of a binding order of a police
authority suspending the proceedings without further sanction
taken after examination of the merits of the case?’

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000, p. 19.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 April
2004.

(1) OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 14 November
2007 — Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH

(Case C-495/07)

(2008/C 22/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silberquelle GmbH

Defendant: Maselli-Strickmode GmbH