CELEX: 62014CN0613
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-613/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 30 December 2014 — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited

23.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 96/5
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 30 December 2014 — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited
   (Case C-613/14)
   (2015/C 096/07)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   Supreme Court, Ireland
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: James Elliott Construction Limited
   
      Defendant: Irish Asphalt Limited
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1
            
            
                
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           Where the terms of a private contract oblige a party to supply a product produced in accordance with a national standard, itself adopted in implementation of a European standard made pursuant to a mandate issued by the European Commission under the provisions of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC) (1), is the interpretation of the said Standard a matter upon which a preliminary ruling may be sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union pursuant to Article 267 TFEU?
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           If the answer to question 1(a) is yes, does EN13242:2002 require that compliance, or breach of the said Standard, be established only by evidence of testing in accordance with the (unmandated) standards adopted by CEN (Le Comité Européen de Normalisation) and referred to in EN13242:2002, and where such tests are carried out at the time of production and/or supply; or may breach of the Standard (and accordingly breach of contract), be established by evidence of tests conducted later, if the results of such tests are logically probative of breach of the Standard?
                        
                     
         
               2
            
            
               When hearing a private-law claim for breach of contract in respect of a product manufactured pursuant to a European standard issued pursuant to a mandate from the European Commission under the Construction Products Directive, is a national court obliged to disapply the provisions of national law implying terms as to merchantability and fitness for purpose or quality, on the grounds that either the statutory terms, or their application, create standards or impose technical specifications or requirements which have not been notified in accordance with the provisions of the Technical Standards Directive (98/34/EC) (2)?
            
         
               3
            
            
               Is a national court hearing a claim for breach of a private contract alleged to arise from a breach of a term as to merchantability or fitness for use (implied by statute in a contract between the parties and not modified or disapplied by them) in respect of a product produced in accordance with EN13242:2002, obliged to presume that the product is of merchantable quality and fit for its purpose, and if so, may such a presumption only be rebutted by proof of non-compliance with EN13242:2002 by tests carried out in accordance with the tests and protocols referred to in EN13242:2002 and carried out at the time of supply of the product?
            
         
               4
            
            
               If the answers to questions 1(a) and 3 are both yes, is a limit for total sulphur content of aggregates prescribed by, or under, EN13242:2002 so that compliance with such a limit was required, inter alia, to give rise to any presumption of merchantability or fitness for use?
            
         
               5
            
            
               If the answers to 1(a) and 3 are both yes, is proof that the product bore the ‘CE’ marking necessary in order to rely on the presumption created by Annex ZA to EN13242:2002 and/or Article 4 of the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC)?
            
         
      (1)  Council Directive (89/106/EEC) of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, OJ L 40, p. 12.
   
      (2)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, OJ L 204, p. 37.