Case C-243/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi Városi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 2 June 2008 — Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi
Date: 2008-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, consumer protection, contract, contract terms, interpretation of the law, unfair terms of contract

C 247/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer
Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2008 —
Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Landkreis-
gemeinden (WAZV Gotha) v Eurawasser Aufbereitungs-
und Entsorgungsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-206/08)

(2008/C 247/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Oberlandesgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Wasser- und Abwasserzweckverband Gotha und Land-
kreisgemeinden (WAZV Gotha)

Respondent: Eurawasser Aufbereitungs- und Entsorgungsge-
sellschaft mbH

Questions referred

1. Is a contract for the supply of services (here, the supply of
water and treatment of waste water), the content of which
does not provide for the contracting authority to make a
direct payment of consideration to the supplier but for the
supplier to be afforded the right to collect consideration
under private law from third parties, to be classified for that
reason alone as a service concession within the meaning of
Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordi-
nating the procurement procedures of entities operating in
the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1), as
distinct from a service contract for pecuniary interest within
the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2004/17?

2. If

the first question is answered in the negative, does a
contract of the kind described in the first question constitute
a service concession if the risk connected with operating the

service in question, because of
the rules of public law
governing it (compulsory connection and usage; prices calcu-
lated on a break-even basis), is significantly limited from the
outset — that is to say, even if the contracting authority
were to provide the service itself — but the supplier assumes
that limited risk in full or at least to a predominant extent?

3. If the second question is also answered in the negative, is
Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17 to be interpreted as
meaning that the degree of risk connected with operating the
service, particularly the marketing risk, must in qualitative
terms be comparable to that which normally exists under
conditions in a free market with more than one competing
tenderer?

(1) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Budaörsi
lodged on 2 June 2008 —
Városi Bíróság (Hungary)

Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

(Case C-243/08)

(2008/C 247/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budaörsi Városi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pannon GSM Zrt.

Defendant: Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/3

Questions referred

Question referred

1. Can Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) — pursuant
to which Member States are to provide that unfair terms
used in a contract concluded with a consumer by a seller or
supplier shall, as provided for under their national law, not
be binding on the consumer — be construed as meaning
that the non-binding nature vis-à-vis the consumer of an
unfair term introduced by the seller or supplier does not
have effect ipso jure but only where the consumer successfully
contests the unfair term by lodging the relevant application?

Is the only substantial processing or working of products
coming under heading 7312 of the Combined Nomenclature
which confers non-preferential origin in accordance with
Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code (1) that which has the effect that the product resulting
from that processing or working is to be classified under a
different heading of the Combined Nomenclature?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

2. Does

the

consumer protection provided by Directive
93/13/EEC require the national court of its own motion —
irrespective of the type of proceedings in question and of
whether or not they are contentious — to determine that the
contract before it contains unfair terms, even where no appli-
cation contesting the unfair nature of the term has been
lodged, thereby carrying out, of its own motion, a review of
the terms introduced by the seller or supplier in the context
of exercising control over its own jurisdiction?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België lodged on 19 June 2008 — Belgische
Staat v Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV

3. In the event that the second question is answered in the affir-
mative, what are the factors which the national court must
take into account and evaluate in the context of exercising
this control?

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

(Case C-264/08)

(2008/C 247/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
finanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2008 — Bundes-
finanzdirektion West v HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

(Case C-260/08)

(2008/C 247/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesfinanzdirektion West

Respondent: HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Belgische Staat

Respondent: Direct Parcel Distribution Belgium NV

Questions referred

1. Is the entry in the accounts referred to in Article 221 of the
Community Customs Code (1) the same as the entry in the
accounts referred to in Article 217, which consists in the
amount of duty being entered by the customs authorities in
the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium?

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is the
rule laid down in Article 217 of the Community Customs
Code that the amount of duty is to be ‘entered … in the
accounting records or on any other equivalent medium’ to
be construed? Are certain technical or formal minimum
requirements attached thereto, or does Article 217 leave the
establishment of more detailed rules on the practice of
entering the amount of duty in the accounts entirely to the
Member States, without
imposing any minimum require-
ments? Should that entry in the accounts be distinguished