Case C-111/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 12 March 2008 — SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation v Alpenblume Aktiebolag
Date: 2008-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bankruptcy, company with share capital, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 116/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2008

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a
proposed penalty payment of EUR 31 798,80 for each day
of delay in complying with the judgment which was deliv-
ered in Case C-65/05, from the day when judgment is deliv-
ered in the present case until the day when the judgment
delivered in Case C-65/05 has been complied with;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission a
daily lump sum of EUR 9 636, from the day when judgment
was delivered in Case C-65/05 until the date on which judg-
ment is delivered in the present case or, if earlier, the date
on which the judgment in Case C-65/05 is complied with;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

delivered in the present case until the day when the judg-
ment delivered in Case C-65/05 has been complied with;

— a daily lump sum of EUR 9 636, from the day when
judgment was delivered in Case C-65/05 until the date
on which judgment is delivered in the present case or, if
earlier, the date on which the judgment in Case C-65/05
is complied with.

(1) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of infor-
mation in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ L 204,
21.7.1998, p. 37).

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. On 26 October 2006 the Court of Justice of the European
Communities delivered a judgment in which it declared as
follows:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 12 March 2008 — SCT
Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation v Alpenblume Aktiebolag

by inserting into Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002
the prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative
penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of the same law, on the
installation and operation of all electrical, electromechanical
and electronic games, including all computer games, on all
public or private premises apart from casinos, the Hellenic
Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28
EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/CE of
the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a
procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations and of rules on Informa-
tion Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of
the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 July
1998.

(Case C-111/08)

(2008/C 116/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta Domstolen

2. After calling upon the Hellenic Republic to inform it of any
regulatory measures to comply with the Court's judgment,
formal notice and a
it a letter of
the Commission sent
reasoned opinion, in accordance with Article 228 EC. The
Hellenic Republic replied to neither.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SCT Industri Aktiebolag i likvidation

Defendant: Alpenblume Aktiebolag

3. Consequently, the Commission recorded that the Hellenic
Republic had failed to take the necessary measures to comply
with the Court's judgment and decided to bring proceedings
against it before the Court in accordance with Article 228
EC.

4. By its action the Commission, first, asks the Court to declare
that the Hellenic Republic has not complied with the judg-
ment delivered by the Court on 26 October 2006 in Case
its obligations
C-65/05 and has therefore failed to fulfil
under Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of
Directive 98/34/EC and, second, proposes that the Court
order the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission:

— a penalty payment of EUR 31 798,80 for each day of
delay in complying with the judgment which was deliv-
ered in Case C-65/05, from the day when judgment is

Question referred

Is the exception in the Brussels I Regulation regarding insol-
vency, compositions and analogous proceedings to be inter-
preted as meaning that it covers a decision given by a court in
one Member State (A) regarding registration of ownership of
shares in a company having its registered office in Member State
A, which ownership is transferred by the liquidator
to a
company in another Member State (B), where the court based
its decision on the fact that Member State A, in the absence of
an agreement between the States regarding mutual recognition
of insolvency proceedings, does not recognise the liquidator's
powers of disposal over property in Member State A?