Case C-383/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August 2007 — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: food consumption, food safety, foodstuff, foodstuffs legislation, human nutrition, interpretation of the law

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/7

practitioner concerned to be considered to be proceedings
which have as their object the validity of a decision of an organ
of that company for the purposes of Article 22, paragraph 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (1) so that the courts of the Member State in which
that company has its seat have exclusive jurisdiction?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2201 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerische
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 10 August
2007 — M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Regensburg

(Case C-383/07)

(2007/C 283/12)

Language of the case: German

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2007 —
Finanzamt
STEKO

Industriemontage

ruling

v

a

GmbH
Speyer-Germersheim

(Case C-377/07)

(2007/C 283/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: STEKO Industriemontage GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim

Question referred

Does Article 56 EC preclude a provision of a Member State
according to which a prohibition on the deduction of reductions
in profit in connection with the holding of a capital company in
another capital company enters into force earlier with regard to
foreign holdings than with regard to domestic (German) hold-
ings?

Referring court

Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: M-K Europa GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Stadt Regensburg

Questions referred

1. In determining whether a food within the meaning of
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 (1)
‘[has] not
hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant
degree within the Community’ may it be considered signifi-
cant that shortly before the Regulation entered into force on
15 May 1997 the food was imported into a narrowly
defined region of Community territory (in the present case:
San Marino) and was available in that locality?

2. For a food not to be considered as novel within the meaning
of Article 1(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97, does it
suffice to determine that all of the ingredients used in its
production have hitherto been used for human consumption
to a significant degree within the Community?

3. Must Article 1(2)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 be inter-
preted narrowly such as to exclude from the category
‘foods … consisting of … algae’ foods containing only such
algae as have hitherto been used for human consumption
within the Community?

4. May a food be considered as ‘having a history of a safe food
use’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(e) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 if experience regarding its safety only exists in
regions outside Europe (in the present case: Japan)?

5. May a food be considered as ‘having a history of a safe food
use’ because it is produced using ingredients with a safe
history in accordance with a production or processing tech-
nique currently in use,
if no experience exists as to that
combination of ingredients and techniques?

C 283/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

6. Does

it

follow from Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 which states that ‘[w]here necessary, it may be
determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 13 whether a type of food or food ingredient falls
within the scope of paragraph 2 of this Article’ that in the
event of a dispute an undertaking must be regarded as under
an obligation to seek that determination and to await the
results thereof? May, in addition, any indications be deduced
from that provision and from Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 concerning the burden of producing evidence
(Darlegungslast) and the substantive burden of proof?

(1) OJ L 43, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
lodged on 13 August 2007 —
gerichtshof
Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit

(Austria)

(Case C-384/07)

(2007/C 283/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

national law, if such application is based on the new version
of that law, which the Commission has held to be compa-
tible with the common market, although the measure
concerns periods of time before that new version and the
amendments which were decisive for
the declaration of
compatibility were not yet applicable to that period, and the
case file does not reveal any infringement of the rights of
third parties?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy)
lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital
Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie
SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
SpA, Officina
Service SpA, Draeger Medica

Italia

Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

(Case C-386/07)

(2007/C 283/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA,
Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA

Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica
Divisione Servizi SpA

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Does the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC require that the
the prohibition
should, on grounds of
national court
contained in that provision on putting State aid into effect,
refuse further grants of State aid to a beneficiary of aid who
under national law is in principle entitled to aid, although
the Commission, while regretting the non-notification of the
aid, has not adopted either a decision under Article 4(2) of
Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 or a
measure under Article 14 of that regulation, and the case file
does not reveal any infringement of
third
parties?

the rights of

2. Does the prohibition under Article 88(3) EC on putting State
aid into effect preclude the application of a provision of

1.

the minimum fees and
‘Does the mandatory nature of
charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers consti-
tute a measure which favours members of the profession
concerned, contrary to Articles 81 EC and 10 EC (formerly
Articles 85 and 5 of the EC Treaty)?

2. Does the prohibition of the reduction by courts, when deter-
mining costs, of the minimum limits set in the individual
items of the scale, by reason of the mandatory nature of the
minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided
by lawyers, constitute a measure which favours members of
the profession concerned,
in
Articles 81 EC and 10 EC?

contrary

to the

rules