27.2.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 71/17
3.
If the Court’s answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative: Does Article 6 of Directive 2001/86 preclude the application of the law of the Member State where the SE now has its registered office for the purpose of retrospective conduct of the negotiation procedure if the ‘SE without employees’ was registered in the register in another Member State without such a procedure having first been conducted and before the transfer of its registered office became the controlling company of subsidiaries in several Member States of the European Union which employ employees? 4.
If the Court’s answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative: Is this also the case where the State where that ‘SE without employees’ was first registered has withdrawn from the European Union after the transfer of the registered office and its law no longer contains any provisions on the conduct of a negotiation procedure for the involvement of employees in the SE?
(1) (2)
Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE) (OJ 2001 L 294, p. 1).
Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2001 L 294, p. 22).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nessebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 December 2022 — Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia EAD v PQ (Case C-744/22) (2023/C 71/20) Language of the case: Bulgarian Referring court Rayonen sad Nessebar
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia EAD Defendant: PQ
Questions referred 1.
Are the provisions of Article 2(5) and Article 7(2)(1) of the Naredba 1 ot 09.07.2004g. za minimalnite razmeri na advokatskite vaznagrazhdenia (Regulation No. 1 of 9 July 2004 on the minimum amount of lawyers’ fees), which are applicable pursuant to Article 47(6) of the Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the GPK’) and which concern the rules for setting the fee of the special representative of an absent defendant for the purposes of proceedings such as the main proceedings, which relate to an action against a consumer for payment for insignificant water consumption — consistent with Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,, if the consumer, should he or she be unsuccessful in that claim, will also be ordered, in accordance with Article 78(1) of the GPK, to pay the costs of the special representative? 2.
Is the provision in Article 47(6) of the GPK, read in conjunction with Article 26(1) of the Zakon za pravnta pomosht (Law on legal aid), on the appointment of a special representative in the event that the consumer cannot be found at his or her address — according to which the fee is to be set by the court, and may be set at an amount below the minimum, whereas another body, the Bar Council, is responsible for designating special representatives, the Bar Council having the ability, in its discretion and solely for the reason that it does not agree with the fee set by the court, to refuse to designate a special representative — consistent with Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 169(1) TFEU? 3.
Is the court entitled, by applying EU law directly, in particular the provisions of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 169(1) TFEU, in the event of a refusal to designate a lawyer as a special representative, to apply other rules for ensuring the protection of consumer rights in judicial proceedings which do not, in principle, apply in such situations under the national law of the Republic of Bulgaria, such as the granting of legal aid under Article 95(1) of the GPK without the consumer having so requested?