Case C-339/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty Belgium NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Court with jurisdiction)
Date: 2009-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: debt, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 82/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.4.2009

The first indent of Article 4(1) of Directive 90/435 is unconditional
and sufficiently precise to be capable of being relied on before national
courts.

ment of judgments in civil and commercial matters for a court of a
Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing
or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State
on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitra-
tion agreement.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February
2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of
Lords
formerly
Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, Generali Assicurazioni
Generali SpA v West Tankers Inc.

(United Kingdom)) — Allianz SpA,

(Case C-185/07) (1)

(Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards —
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope of application — Juris-
diction of a court of a Member State to issue an order
restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceed-
ings before a court of another Member State on the ground
that those proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration
agreement — New York Convention)

(2009/C 82/06)

Language of the case: English

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February
2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof — Germany) — Christopher Seagon in his
capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Frick
Supermärkte GmbH v Deko Marty
Teppichboden

Belgium NV

(Case C-339/07) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings
— Court with jurisdiction)

(2009/C 82/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

House of Lords

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Allianz SpA, formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta
SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA

Applicant: Christopher Seagon in his capacity as liquidator in
respect of the assets of Frick Teppichboden Supermärkte GmbH

Respondent: West Tankers Inc.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Inter-
pretation of 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) — Power of a court of a Member State to
order a party not to commence court proceedings or to cease
those proceedings in another Member State on the ground that
they are contrary to an arbitration agreement

Operative part of the judgment

It
is incompatible with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforce-

Defendant: Deko Marty Belgium NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings
(OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) and Article 1(2)(b) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court of
the Member State within the territory of which the centre of a
debtor's main interests is situated in respect of
judgments
deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings and which are
closely linked with them — Action (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage)
for reimbursement of a payment by the debtor to a company
whose registered office is in another Member State

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/5

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May
2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that
the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency
proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to
set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a
person whose registered office is in another Member State.

undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be
interpreted as meaning that that directive may also apply in a situation
where the part of the undertaking or business transferred does not
retain its organisational autonomy, provided that the functional link
between the various elements of production transferred is preserved, and
that that link enables the transferee to use those elements to pursue an
identical or analogous economic activity, a matter which it is for the
national court to determine.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

(1) OJ C 8, 8.12.2008.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February
2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesar-
beitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dietmar Klarenberg
v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

(Case C-466/07) (1)

(Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfer of under-
takings — Safeguarding of employees' rights — Concept of
legal transfer — Legal transfer of a part of a business to
another undertaking — Organisational autonomy following
the transfer)

(2009/C 82/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dietmar Klarenberg

Defendant: Ferrotron Technologies GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
— Interpretation of Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive
2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws
of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights
in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of under-
takings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Applicability of
Directive 2001/23/EC in the event of a legal transfer of a part of a
business to another undertaking which integrates,
into its organisa-
tional structure, the part of the business that has been transferred
without preserving the latter's organisational autonomy — Concept of
‘transfer’ for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March
2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February
the European Communities v
2009 — Commission of

Republic of Poland

(Case C-475/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Electri-
city tax — Directive 2003/96/EC — First subparagraph of
Article 21(5) — Time at which the tax becomes chargeable)

(2009/C 82/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Mölls and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: T. Kozek, M.
Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed time limit, the measures necessary
to comply with Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC
of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework
for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with
EEA Relevance) (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Time at which the
electricity tax becomes chargeable

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adapt, by 1 January 2006, its system
of electricity tax, with regard to the time at which the electricity tax
becomes chargeable, to the requirements of the first subparagraph
of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October
2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of
energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive
2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive.