Case C-372/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 6 August 2007 — Nicole Hassett and Cheryl Doherty/The Medical Defence Union Limited and MDU Services Limited v Raymond Howard and Brian Davidson
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, civil law, civil proceedings, commercial law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, physician, trade union

C 283/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Operative part of the judgment

1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down
principles and detailed guidelines
for good clinical practice as
regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as
the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or impor-
tation of such products, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

2. The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Criminal
proceedings against Karl Schwarz

(Case C-321/07)

(2007/C 283/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mannheim

Party to the main proceedings

Karl Schwarz

Questions referred

drive, which was issued earlier, also no longer requires to be
recognised after accession of the foreign Member State, even
where the period of
the ban imposed in Germany has
expired?

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences

(OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court
(Ireland) made on 6 August 2007 — Nicole Hassett and
Cheryl Doherty/The Medical Defence Union Limited and
MDU Services Limited v Raymond Howard and Brian
Davidson

(Case C-372/07)

(2007/C 283/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nicole Hassett and Cheryl Doherty/The Medical
Defence Union Limited and MDU Services Limited

Defendants: Raymond Howard and Brian Davidson

Questions referred

1. Is it — contrary to Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1)
— possible under Community law for a citizen of the EU to
hold a valid German right to drive and a second right to
drive issued by another Member State, both of which were
obtained before the accession to the EU of
the foreign
Member State and — if so —

2. Does the withdrawal — before the entry into force of the
Regulation on the right to drive (Fahrerlaubnisverordnung;
‘FeV’) of 1 January 1999 — of the later second German right
to drive as a consequence of a drunkenness offence mean
that the validity in Germany of the first foreign right to

Where medical practitioners form a mutual defence organisation
taking the form of a company, incorporated under the laws of
one Member State, for the purpose of providing assistance and
indemnity to its members practising in that and another
Member State in respect of their professional practice, and the
provision of such assistance or indemnity is dependant on the
making of a decision by the Board of Management of that
company, in accordance with its Articles of association, in its
absolute discretion, are proceedings in which a decision refusing
assistance or indemnity to a medical practitioner practising in
the other Member State pursuant to that provision is challenged
by that medical practitioner as involving a breach by the
company of contractual or other legal rights of the medical

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?