Case C-137/08: 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
Date: 2008-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, unfair terms of contract

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?

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/9

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, what
criteria may the national courts take into account in the
context of that review,
in particular in the case that the
contractual term does not grant jurisdiction to the judicial
body corresponding to the registered office of the service
provider, but to a different judicial body which is located
close to that registered office?

3. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Articl 23 of the Protocol
on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty
on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European
Community and the Treaty establishing the European
Atomic Energy Community, is the possibility precluded for
the national courts to inform the Ministry of Justice of their
own Member State that a reference for a preliminary ruling
has been made at the same time as making that reference?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Hochtief
AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa
Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-138/08)

(2008/C 183/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH

Defendant: Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbi-
zottság

Intervener: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

time-limit granted to Member States for implementing that
directive had not yet expired, so that the directive had not
been incorporated into national law?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, this
court further asks whether, in the case of negotiated proce-
dures with publication of a contract notice, — having regard
that Article 44(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC
to the fact
provides that
the number of candidates
invited shall be sufficient to ensure genuine competition’ —
the limitation of the number of suitable candidates should be
interpreted as meaning that in the second stage — that of
invariably be a
awarding the contract — there must
minimum number of candidates (three)?

‘[i]n any event

3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, this
court further asks the Court of Justice whether the require-
ment that ‘there be a sufficient number of suitable candi-
dates’, under Article 22(3) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts (‘Directive 93/37’), should be inter-
preted as meaning that where the minimum number of
suitable candidates invited to take part is not reached (three),
the procedure cannot continue to the stage of invitation to
tender?

4. If the Court of Justice replies to the third question in the
negative, this court further asks whether the second para-
graph of Article 22(2) of Directive 93/37 — in the rules on
restricted procedures, according to which ‘[i]n any event, the
number of candidates invited to tender shall be sufficient to
ensure genuine competition’ — is applicable to two-stage
negotiated procedures, governed by Article 22(3)?

(1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 —
Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku

(Case C-139/08)

(2008/C 183/17)

Language of the case: German

Questions referred

1. Is the procedure laid down in Article 44(3) of Directive
2004/18/EC, which replaced Article 22 of Council Directive
93/37/EEC (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts, applicable where the
procurement procedure was initiated at a time when Direc-
tive 2004/18/EC (2) had already entered into force, but the

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe