Case C-132/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíroság (Hungarian Republic) lodged on 2 April 2008 — LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa
Date: 2008-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EC conformity marking, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, marketing, mutual recognition principle, telecommunications

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/7

Parties

Defendant: French Republic

Applicants: Tiercé Ladbroke SA and Derby SA

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
(Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmoni-
sation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption in relation to
transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts
and payments — Bets, lotteries and other games of chance or
forms of gambling — Supply of services by buralistes respon-
sible for collecting the bets on behalf of a principal and, where
appropriate, for paying out winnings to bettors — Whether
eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 13(B)(d)(3)

By order of 16 May 2008, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared
that it clearly had no jurisdiction to decide the action and
ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.

Action brought on 7 February 2008 — Sandra Raulin v
French Republic

(Case C-49/08)

(2008/C 183/13)

Language of the case: French

Operative part of the order

Parties

‘transactions,

including negotiation,

The terms
concerning deposit
accounts and payments’ used in Article 13(B)(d)(3) of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment are to be inter-
preted as meaning that they do not refer to the supply of services by an
agent acting on behalf of a client which carries out the activity of
accepting bets on horse races and other sporting events, consisting of
acceptance by the agent of bets on behalf of the client, registration
thereof, confirmation to the client, by presentation of the betting slip,
that a bet was made, collection of funds, payment of winnings, sole
assumption of
liability as regards the client for management of the
funds collected and for thefts and/or losses of money and receipt of
remuneration in the form of commission from the client as remunera-
tion for that activity.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Hervé Raulin v
French Republic

Applicant: Sandra Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

Defendant: French Republic

By order of 16 May 2008 the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared
that it clearly had no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the action
and ordered Mrs Raulin to pay her own costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Bíroság (Hungarian Republic) lodged on 2 April 2008 —
LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt. v Nemzeti Hírközlési
Hatóság Tanácsa

(Case C-132/08)

(2008/C 183/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

(Case C-454/07)

(2008/C 183/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíroság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties

Applicant: LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt.

Applicant: Hervé Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

Defendant: Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa

C 183/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Questions referred

1. Can Article 8 of Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning
that no obligations apart from those concerning the free
movement of radio equipment and telecommunications
terminal equipment (‘equipment’) in the directive may be
laid down as regards the marketing of equipment which
falls within the scope of the directive and which has had
the CE mark affixed by its producer, established in another
Member State?

2. Can Article 2(e) and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC (2) of the
European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted, as
regards obligations relating to marketing, as meaning that
an entity may also be regarded as a producer if it markets
equipment in a Member State (without being involved in
the manufacture of the equipment) and is established in a
Member State other than the one where the producer is
established?

3. Can Article 2(e)(i),

(ii) and (iii), and (f) of Directive
2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
be interpreted as meaning that the distributor of equipment
manufactured in another Member State (who is not the
same person as the producer) can be required to issue a
declaration of conformity setting out the technical data
relating to the equipment?

4. Can Article 2(e)(i),

(ii) and (iii), and (f) of Directive
2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
be interpreted as meaning that an entity which carries out
only distribution in one Member State and is established in
that State, must also be regarded as the producer of the
distributed equipment where the activity of the distributor
does not affect the safety characteristics of the equipment?

5. Can Article 2(f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning
that
the distributor as defined in the directive can be
required to fulfil the obligations which under the directive
are required only of the producer as defined in Article 2(e),
such as the issuing of a declaration of conformity as
regards technical conditions?

6. Can Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC) and the so-called
mandatory requirements justify an exception to the applica-
tion of the Dassonville formula, having regard to the princi-
ples of equivalence and mutual recognition?

provisions or provisions regarding quality to equipment
bearing the mark?

10. Can the provisions of Article 6(1) and of

the second
sentence of Article 8(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as
meaning that, for the purposes of marketing of goods, the
producer and the distributor can be considered to be
subject to the same obligations, where the producer does
not market the products?

(1) Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications term-
inal equipment and the mutual recognition of
their conformity
(OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10).
(2) Directive 2001/95/EC of

the
Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ 2002
L 11, p. 4).

the European Parliament and of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti II.
és III Kerületi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary) lodged on
7 April 2008 — VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt. v Ferenc
Schneider

(Case C-137/08)

(2008/C 183/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti II. és III Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB Pénzügyi Lízing Zrt.

Defendant: Ferenc Schneider

7. Can Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC) be interpreted as
meaning that
trade in and import of goods in transit
cannot be restricted for any reason other than those listed
there?

Questions referred

8. Is the CE mark sufficient to satisfy the principle of equiva-
lence or the principle of mutual recognition and the condi-
tions of Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC)?

9. Can the CE mark be interpreted as meaning that Member
justified in applying any other technical

States are not

1. Does the consumer protection guaranteed by Council Direc-
tive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 (1) on unfair terms in
consumer contracts require that — irrespective of the type of
proceedings and whether they are inter partes or not — in
the context of the review of their own competences, the
national courts are to assess, of their own motion, the unfair
nature of a contractual term before them even if not specifi-
cally requested to do so?