CELEX: C1995/189/22
Language: en
Date: 1995-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 25 May 1995, in the case of Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond (Case C-163/95)

22 . 7. 95            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Raad               conformity of the equipment under the approval procedure
van State by judgment of that court of 7 February 1995 in              is independent from any economic agent offering goods or
        the case of André &Co NV v. Belgian State                      services in the telecommunications sector ?
                         Case C-153/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/20 )                             H OJ No L 131 , 27 . 5 . 1988 , p . 73 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Belgian Raad
van State ( State Council ) of 7 February 1995 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of André & Co NV v. Belgian             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
State on the following questions :                                     order of that court of 25 May 1995 , in the case of Elsbeth
                                                                                Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond
1 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 of                              ( Case C-163/95 )
     15 April 1980 be interpreted as meaning that                                                ( 95/C 189/22
     application of that Regulation in respect of an export
     operation must be refused where the products to which             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the new monetary compensatory amount applies were                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
     imported less than six months before the export                   of 25 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     operation ?                                                       on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn against Kevin Cinnamond, on
2 . Must Article 8 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 926/80 be      the following questions :
     interpreted as meaning that application of that
     Regulation must also be refused with regard to an                 In a case where :
     export operation in respect of which monetary
     compensatory amounts are due , where the export
     operation was preceded less than six months before by             ( a ) there are pending proceedings in two different
     an import operation for which monetary compensatory                     Contracting States involving the same cause of action
     amounts were received by a person other than the                        and between the same parties;
     person who exported the products ?
                                                                       ( b ) the first such proceedings in time were initiated in
                                                                             Contracting State A before the Brussels Convention
                                                                             and/or any applicable Accession Convention came into
                                                                             force in that State;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de                 (c ) the second such proceedings are initiated in
Police, Nancy, by judgment of that court of 25 April 1995 in                 Contracting State B in accordance with Article 2 of the
                                                                             Brussels Convention after the Brussels Convention
the case of Ministère Public against Philippe Baumert and
                       Jean Loup Dirler                                      and/or any applicable Accession Convention has come
                                                                             into force in both State A and State B;
                        ( Case C-162/95 )
                           ( 95/C 189/21 )                                   and having regard to Article 29.1 of the San Sebastian
                                                                             Convention and the corresponding Articles in any other
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       applicable Accession Convention and Article 21 of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale de                       Brussels Convention ( as amended ):
Police ( Criminal Court), Nancy, of 25 April 1995 , which
was received at the Court Registry on 23 May 1995 , for a                    1 . Does the Brussels Convention ( as amended ) and/or
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère Public (Public                        any applicable Accession Convention lay down
Prosecutor ) against Philippe Baumert and Jean Loup Dirler                        any, and if so what, rules as to whether the
on the following question:                                                        proceedings in State B may or must be stayed , or
                                                                                  jurisdiction declined, on the ground of pending
                                                                                  proceedings in State A ?
Does Article 6 of Directive 88/301/EEC of 16 May 1988 on
competition in the markets in telecommunications terminal
                                                                                  and in particular,
equipment i 1 ) preclude the application of national rules
which prohibit economic agents from, and penalize them
                                                                             2 . Is the Court second seised required or permitted ,
for, manufacturing, importing, holding for sale, selling,
distributing or advertising terminal equipment without                            for the purpose of deciding whether or not to
furnishing proof, in the form of an approval or another                           decline jurisdiction in respect of, or to stay, the
document regarded as equivalent, that such equipment                              proceedings before it, to conduct any, and, if so,
                                                                                  what examination of the basis upon which the
conforms to certain essential requirements relating in
                                                                                  Court first seised assumed jurisdiction ?
particular to the safety of users and the proper functioning
of the network, even though there is no guarantee that
the laboratory responsible for monitoring the technical