CELEX: C2000/233/29
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-208/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction Company Baumanagement GmbH

C 233/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 2.    If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
hof order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case                            can the first indent of the third subparagraph of Artic-
of Überseering BV against NCC Nordic Construction                              le 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1) be interpreted as
               Company Baumanagement GmbH                                       meaning that false information provided in good faith by
                                                                                the refund applicant on the basis of inaccurate data
                          (Case C-208/00)                                       supplied by the manufacturer constitutes in principle a
                                                                                case of force majeure where the applicant could not
                                                                                establish that it was false or could do so only by means
                          (2000/C 233/29)                                       of cheeks at the undertaking in which the goods were
                                                                                manufactured?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 30 March 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 25 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                (1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
the case of Überseering v NCC Nordic Construction Company
Baumanagement GmbH on the following questions:
1.    Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning
      that it is contrary to the right to freedom of establishment
      of companies if the legal capacity and capacity to bring
      legal proceedings of a company validly incorporated
      under the law of one Member State are determined
      according to the law of another State to which the
      company has moved its actual centre of administration
      and the law of that second State no longer allows the
      company to bring legal proceedings there in respect of
      claims based on contract?                                           Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
2.    If the Court’s answer to that question is yes:
      Does the right to freedom of establishment of companies                                      (Case C-216/00)
      (Articles 43 and 48 EC) mean that a company’s legal
      capacity and capacity to bring legal proceedings must be
      determined according to the law of the State where the
      company is incorporated?                                                                     (2000/C 233/31)
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                   expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for
hof by order of 4 April 2000 in the case of Käserei                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt                        Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          Hamburg-Jonas
                          (Case C-210/00)                                 The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 233/30)
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
                                                                                Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
European Communities by order of 4 April 2000 by the                            comply fully with Article 3 of European Parliament
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received                     and Council Directive 97/52/EC (1) of 13 October 1997
at the Court Registry on 26 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling                  amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
in the case of Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co.                         93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures
KG v Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas                      for the award of public service contracts, public supply
on the following questions:                                                     contracts and public works contracts respectively, the
                                                                                Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Is Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 valid in                  the EC Treaty;
      so far as it provides for a penalty even where, through no
      fault of his own, an exporter has applied for an export
      refund exceeding that applicable?                                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.