Case C-19/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 January 2009 — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA
Date: 2009-01-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: decision, domestic trade, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, provision of services

C 82/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2009

By his third plea, the appellant submits that the Court of First
Instance erred in law in that it found that the AECE did not
misuse its powers. The stated aim of employment of temporary
agents was to reduce the number of posts vacant within the
Commission and, in particular, to make up for the shortage of
candidates who had been successful in competitions.

The latter aim was in no way met by the refusal to extend the
appellant's contract following application of the rule prohibiting
aggregation of service, since his post was advertised before any
competition lists were published. Moreover, another temporary
agent was given a long-term contract in that post, while the
contracts of all the other temporary agents employed on a
short-term basis in the same directorate were automatically
extended, without prior advertisement of their posts.

Finally, the principle of equal treatment has been breached since
all the other temporary agents who were in a comparable situa-
tion apart
from their length of service, had their contracts
extended without their posts being advertised, unlike the proce-
dure adopted in the case of the appellant. In that context, the
burden of proof was wrongly reversed in the proceedings before
the Court of First Instance, since it is for the defendant — and
not for the applicant — to prove that rules which it laid down
itself have been followed.

provision of services also where the services are, by
agreement, provided in several Member States?

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative,

Should the provision referred to be interpreted as
meaning that

(b) the place of performance of the obligation that is charac-
teristic of the contract must be determined by reference
to the place where the service provider's centre of busi-
ness is located, which is to be determined by reference to
the amount of time spent and the importance of the
activity;

(c) in the event that it is not possible to determine a centre
of business, an action in respect of all claims founded on
the contract may be brought, at the applicant's choice, in
any place of performance of the service within the Com-
munity?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

Is
Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applicable in the
case of a contract for the provision of services also where the
services are, by agreement, provided in several Member
States?

(1) OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Wien (Austria)
lodged on 15 January 2009 —
Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva
Trade, SA

Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-19/09)

(2009/C 82/22)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-20/09)

(2009/C 82/23)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Applicant: Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH

Defendant: Silva Trade, SA

Form of order sought

Questions referred

1.

(a) Is the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on juris-
diction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters (1)
(‘Regulation
No 44/2001’) applicable in the case of a contract for the

— A declaration that, by providing, in connection with adjust-
ment in accordance with Law No 39-A/2005, preferential
tax treatment for public debt securities issued by the Portu-
guese State alone, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 56 of
the EC Treaty and
Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic
Area (EEA);

— an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.