Case C-292/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 2 July 2008 — German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v A. van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV
Date: 2008-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, civil law, commercial law, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, jurisdiction

C 272/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.10.2008

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Action brought on 1 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-291/08)

(2008/C 272/06)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands)
lodged on 2 July 2008 —
German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH v A. van
der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland Binding BV

(Case C-292/08)

(2008/C 272/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and C. Egerer, Agents)

Referring court

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not adopting the laws,

regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council
Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 (1) adapting
certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of
persons, by reason of
the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania, or by not communicating them to the Commis-
sion, the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations
under Article 2 of that directive;

— Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The deadline for
expired on 1 January 2007.

transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC

(1) OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141.

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: German Graphics Graphische Maschinen GmbH

Respondent: A. van der Schee, acting as liquidator of Holland
Binding BV

Questions referred

the words

‘provided that

1. Must Article 25(2) of the Insolvency Regulation (1) be inter-
preted as meaning that
that
Convention [that is to say, the Brussels I Regulation (2)] is
applicable’ featuring in that provision imply that, before it
can be concluded that
the recognition and enforcement
provisions of the Brussels I Regulation are applicable to judg-
ments other than those referred to in Article 25(1) of the
first necessary to examine
is
Insolvency Regulation,
whether, pursuant to Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regu-
lation, such judgments fall outside the material scope of that
regulation?

it

25.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/7

the opening of

insolvency proceedings against

2. Must Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation, in conjunc-
tion with Article 7(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, be inter-
preted as meaning that it follows from the fact that an asset
to which a reservation of title applies is situated, at the time
of
the
purchaser,
in the Member State in which those insolvency
proceedings are opened, that a claim of the seller based on
that reservation of title, such as that of German Graphics,
must be regarded as a claim which relates to bankruptcy or
the winding-up of an insolvent
company, within the
meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation, and
which therefore falls outside the material scope of that regu-
lation?

3. Is it relevant in the context of Question 2 that, pursuant to
Article 4(2)(b) of the Insolvency Regulation, the law of the
Member State in which the insolvency proceedings are
opened is to determine the assets which form part of the
estate?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insol-

vency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts, public supply contracts and public
service contracts (1);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission alleges that the defendant permits
the award of contracts on the basis of mutual agreement — or
with limited competition — in situations not provided for by
Directive 2004/18/EC. By drawing a distinction between marchés
de definition and public works, supply or service contracts and
by allowing,
in certain circumstances, the award of the latter
contracts to one of the holders of the initial marchés de defini-
tion without again opening them to competition or, at the very
least, by opening them to competition limited only to those
holders, the French legislation disregards the fundamental princi-
ples of
to Directive
2004/18/EC. In the Commission's view, it is impossible by defi-
nition for the subject-matter and criteria for the award of a
public procurement contract to be known precisely before the
project itself has been defined. The marché de definition and the
public works, supply or service contract are two entirely distinct
types of public procurement contract, each having its own
subject-matter and criteria for award and, on those grounds,
they must both comply with the stipulations of Directive
2004/18/EC.

equality and transparency inherent

Action brought on 4 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

(1) OJ L 134, p. 114.

(Case C-299/08)

(2008/C 272/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by adopting and keeping in force Articles 73
and 74-IV of the Code des marchés publics (Public Procure-
ment Code) adopted by Decree No 2006-975 of 1 August
2006, inasmuch as those provisions lay down a procedure
for the award of marchés de definition (public contracts for
designing the parameters, including the purpose, of a public
works, supply or service contract) under which it is possible
for the awarding authority to award a public works, supply
or service contract
the initial
marchés de definition without opening it afresh to competition
or, at most, by opening it to competition limited to those
holders, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Articles 2, 28 and 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March

the holders of

to one of

Action brought on 9 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-307/08)

(2008/C 272/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J.-P. Keppenne and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— Declare that, since it does not prevent double taxation of
dividends paid by undertakings domiciled in another
Member State or EEA/EFTA State to natural persons, the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the European Economic
Area Agreement;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.