Case C-394/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 — Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC Mellon Trust Company
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, rights of the defence

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/11

The applicant claims that the Court should:

tive areas of Lough Neagh and Upper and Lower Lough Erne, as
was required by 31 December 1998.

1. Declare that, by having failed to

— identify the Humber Estuary, The Wash, the Deben and
Colne Estuaries, the Outer Thames Estuary, Southampton
Water and the North East Irish Sea — with the exception
of the Solway Firth — as sensitive areas with respect to
eutrophication;

— subject to more stringent treatment discharges of urban
from agglomerations with a population
waste water
equivalent (p.e.) of more than 10 000 into the Humber
Estuary, The Wash, the Deben and Colne Estuaries, the
Outer Thames Estuary, Southampton Water, the North
East Irish Sea — with the exception of the Solway Firth
—, and into Lough Neagh and Upper and Lower Lough
Erne,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
its obligations pursuant to Article 3(1),
has failed to fulfil
3(2), 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(5) of, and Annex II to, Council
Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treat-
ment.

2. Order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Commission's view the United Kingdom has taken an
excessively restrictive approach to the identification of sensitive
areas. This is not only because of the relatively high threshold
of proof required by the United Kingdom before accepting that
a water body is eutrophic, but also the fact that the United
Kingdom makes no reference to the need also to identify those
water bodies which are at risk and may in the near future
become eutrophic if protective action is not taken.

Because the United Kingdom has failed to identify as sensitive
areas the Humber estuary, the Wash, the Deben and Colne estu-
aries, the Outer Thames estuary and Southampton Water and
the North East Irish Sea (excluding the Solway Firth) the waste
water
from the agglomerations of more that 10 000 p.e.
discharging waste waters into these areas, as well as those
agglomerations which are situated in their relevant catchment
areas, have not been made subject to the collection and treat-
ment obligations foreseen in the directive for sensitive areas by
the 31 December 1998 deadline.

London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Kingston upon Hull and
Southampton are among the agglomerations implicated. This
puts the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the
directive, and in particular of those specified in Article 3(1) and
(2) and in Article 5(2), (3) and (5) and annex II thereof.

the United
The Commission is also of
Kingdom has failed to ensure that the full obligations set out in
Articles 5(2), (3) and (5) of the directive have been met for a
number of agglomerations discharging into the designated sensi-

the opinion that

(1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, p. 40).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 —
Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC
Mellon Trust Company

(Case C-394/07)

(2007/C 283/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'Appello di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marco Gambazzi

Respondents: Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc, CIBC Mellon Trust
Company

Questions referred

1. On the basis of the public-policy clause in Article 27(1) of
the Brussels Convention, may the court of
the State
requested to enforce a judgment take account of the fact that
the court of the State which handed down that judgment
denied the unsuccessful party — which had entered an
appearance — the opportunity to present any form of
defence following the issue of a debarring order as described
[in the grounds of the present Order]?

2. Or does the interpretation of that provision in conjunction
with the principles to be inferred from Article 26 et seq. of
the Convention, concerning the mutual recognition and
enforcement of judgments within the Community, preclude
the national court from finding that civil proceedings in
which a party has been prevented from exercising the rights
of the defence, on grounds of a debarring order issued by
the court because of that party's failure to comply with a
court injunction, are contrary to public policy within the
meaning of Article 27(1)?