CELEX: C1998/072/19
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart by order of that court of 17 December 1997 in the case of Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben Media AG, interveners: (1) SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen GmbH and (2) Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH (Case C-6/98)

7.3.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 72/11
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional                     primary Community law (Articles 5, 6, 30 et seq., 59
Court), AngouleÃme, of 8 January 1998, which was                         et seq. and 85 et seq. of the EC Treaty and the
received at the Court Registry on 12 January 1998, for a                 general principle of equality)?
preliminary ruling in the case of SA Otor Godard v.
Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Charente (Director of          (1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
the Charente Tax Office) on the following question:
Must Article 5 of the EC Treaty and the principle of legal
certainty be interpreted as meaning that they preclude
Article L 190(3) of the Code of Fiscal Procedures from
limiting an action for recovery of amounts unduly paid to           Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling   by    the
the period subsequent to 1 January of the fourth year               Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 4 December
prior to that in which the judgment establishing non-                1997 in the case of Dieter Krombach v. AndreÂ Bamberski
conformity was established, where that judgment is a                                        (Case C-7/98)
judgment of the Court of Justice delivered following
failure by a Member State to transpose a directly                                            (98/C 72/20)
applicable provision of a directive affecting the State
budget.'
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Ninth Civil Senate
                                                                    of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) of
                                                                    4 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                    14 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Dieter Krombach v. AndreÂ Bamberski on the following
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         questions:
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart by order of that court of
17 December 1997 in the case of Arbeitsgemeinschaft                 1. May the provisions on jurisdiction form part of public
Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben                         policy within the meaning of Article 27(1) of the
Media AG, interveners: (1) SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen                    Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and
        GmbH and (2) Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH                        the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                         (Case C-6/98)                                  Commercial Matters where the State of origin has
                                                                        based its jurisdiction as against a person domiciled in
                          (98/C 72/19)                                  another contracting State (first paragraph of Article 2
                                                                        of the Convention) solely on the nationality of the
                                                                        injured party (as in the second paragraph of Article 3
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        of the Convention in relation to France)?
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Civil
Senate of the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Higher
Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 17 December 1997, which                   If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
was received at the Court Registry on 12 January 1998,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arbeitsgemeinschaft         2. May the court of the State in which enforcement is
Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben                         sought (first paragraph of Article 31 of the
Media AG, interveners: (1) SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen                    Convention) take into account under public policy
GmbH and (2) Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH, on the                        within the meaning of Article 27(1) that the criminal
following questions:                                                    court of the State of origin did not allow the debtor to
                                                                        be defended by a lawyer in a civil-law procedure for
(a) Does Article 11(3) of Directive 97/36/EC of the                     damages instituted within the criminal proceedings
      European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June                 (Article II of the Protocol of 27 September 1968 on
      1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC (the                  the interpretation of the Convention) because he, a
      Television Amendment Directive') (1) or the identical             resident of another Contracting State, was charged
      Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                  with an intentional offence and did not appear in
      3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain                     person?
      provisions laid down by law, regulation or
      administrative action in Member States concerning                 If Question 2 is also answered in the negative:
      the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (the
      Television Directive') prescribe the gross principle or       3. May the court of the State in which enforcement is
      the net principle?                                                sought take into account under public policy within
                                                                        the meaning of Article 27(1) of the Convention that
(b) On the assumption that Article 44(4) of the Dritter                 the court of the State of origin based its jurisdiction
      Staatsvertrag zur ¾nderung rundfunkrechtlicher                    solely on the nationality of the injured party (see
      Staatsverträge (Third Treaty amending Treaties on                 Question 1 above) and additionally prevented the
      Broadcasting Law, Annex B 33, p. 437 of the case-                 defendant from being legally represented (see
      file) prescribes the net principle, is that then                  Question 2 above)?
      compatible with Article 11(3) in conjunction with
      Article 3(1) of the Television Directive or with