Case C-384/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 August 2007 — Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid system, control of State aid, interpretation of the law

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