Case C-420/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 13 September 2007 — Meletis Apostolides v David Charles Orams, Linda Elizabeth Orams
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cyprus, civil law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, public property

C 297/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v
Commission — Inadmissibility of an application for annulment
of a decision of the Commission not to initiate proceedings
against the Hellenic Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil
obligations

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias

AE shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 356 of 30.12.2006.

and administrative provisions relating to the application of
review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) — National case-law
recognising that an individual member of a tendering consor-
tium has the right
to bring an action against the decision
awarding the contract

Operative part of the order

Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public
supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 is to be interpreted as not precluding
the possibility, under national
for an individual member of a
law,
consortium without legal personality which has participated as such in
a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been
awarded that contract to bring an action against the decision awarding
that contract.

(1) OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy)) — Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele v
Elilombarda Srl, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Niguarda
Ca' Granda di Milano

(Case C-492/06) (1)

(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures concerning the award of public contracts —
Persons to whom review procedures must be available —
Tender by a consortium — Right of each member of a consor-
tium to bring an action individually)

(2007/C 297/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 13 September
2007 — Meletis Apostolides v David Charles Orams, Linda
Elizabeth Orams

(Case C-420/07)

(2007/C 297/34)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meletis Apostolides

Applicant: Consorzio Elisoccorso San Raffaele

Defendants: David Charles Orams, Linda Elizabeth Orams

Defendants: Elilombarda Srl, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale
Niguarda Ca' Granda di Milano

Re:

Questions referred

1. In this question,

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Inter-
pretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations

— the term ‘the Government-controlled area’ refers to the
area of the Republic of Cyprus over which the Govern-
ment of
the Republic of Cyprus exercises effective
control; and

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/21

— the term ‘the northern area’ refers to the area of the
Republic of Cyprus over which the Government of the
Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

Does the suspension of the application of the acquis commu-
nautaire in the northern area by Article 1(1) of Protocol
No 10 of the Act of Accession 2003 of Cyprus to the EU
preclude a Member State Court from recognising and enfor-
cing a judgment given by a Court of the Republic of Cyprus
sitting in the Government-controlled area relating to land in
the northern area, when such recognition and enforcement is
sought under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of
commercial
matters (1) (‘Regulation 44/2001’), which is part of the acquis
communautaire?

judgments

in civil

and

2. Does Article 35(1) of Regulation 44/2001 entitle or bind a
Member State court to refuse recognition and enforcement
of a judgment given by the Courts of another Member State
concerning land in an area of the latter Member State over
which the Government of that Member State does not exer-
cise effective control? In particular, does such a judgment
conflict with Article 22 of Regulation 44/2001?

3. Can a judgment of a Member State court, sitting in an area
of that State over which the Government of that State does
exercise effective control, in respect of land in that State in
an area over which the Government of that State does not
exercise effective control, be denied recognition or enforce-
ment under Article 34(1) of Regulation 44/2001 on the
grounds that as a practical matter the judgment cannot be
enforced where the land is situated, although the judgment is
enforceable
the
Member State?

in the Government-controlled area of

4. Where

— a default judgment has been entered against a defendant;

— the defendant then commenced proceedings in the Court

of origin to challenge the default judgment; but

the proceedings in sufficient time and in such a way as to
enable him to arrange for his defence prior to the entry of
the original default judgment? Does it make a difference if
the hearing entailed only consideration of the defendant's
defence to the claim.

5. In applying the test in Article 34(2) of Regulation 44/2001
of whether the defendant was ‘served with the document which
instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in suffi-
cient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his
defence’ what factors are relevant to the assessment? In par-
ticular:

(a) Where service in fact brought the document to the atten-
tion of
to consider the
actions (or inactions) of the defendant or his lawyers
after service took place?

the defendant,

is it relevant

(b) What if any relevance would particular conduct of, or
difficulties experienced by, the defendant or his lawyers
have?

(c) Is it relevant

the defendant's lawyer could have
entered an appearance before judgment in default was
entered?

that

(1) OJ L 12, p. 1.

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-423/07)

(2007/C 297/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

— his application was unsuccessful following a full and fair
hearing on the ground that he had failed to show any
arguable defence (which is necessary under national law
before such a judgment can be set aside),

Parties

can that defendant resist enforcement of the original default
judgment or the judgment on the application to set aside
under Article 34(2) of Regulation 44/2001, on the ground
that he was not served with the document which instituted

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Kukovec, agent and M. Canal Fontcuberta,
abogada)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain