CELEX: C1995/268/10
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 August 1995 in Case C-433/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations - Public works and public supply contracts)

14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 268/5
      products concerned, so that it is important in particular        Article 37 (2) and the first paragraph of Article 38 of the
      to ascertain whether the charge would have the effect,            Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
      on the market in question, of reducing potential                 Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
      consumption of the imported products to the advantage            Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978
      of competing domestic products. The national court               on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      must have regard here to the difference between the              the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      selling prices of the products in question and the impact        are to be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a
      of that difference on the consumer's choice, as well as to       court of a Contracting State, seised of an appeal against
      changes in the consumption of those products.                    authorization to enforce an enforceable judgment ofa court
                                                                       in another Contracting State, refuses a stay or lifts a stay
                                                                       previously ordered cannot be contested by an appeal in
4 . There are no grounds for limiting in time the effects of           cassation or similar form of appeal limited to the
      the present judgment.                                            examination of points of law only. Moreover, the court
                                                                       seised of such an appeal on a point of law under
(') OJ No C 251 , 15 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                       Article 37 (2) ofthe Convention dies not have jurisdiction to
                                                                       impose or reimpose such a stay.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 11 August 1995
                        of 11 August 1995                              in Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
in Case C-432/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )
the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division )): Société                       (Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil
d'Informatique Service Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO )               obligations — Public works and public supply contracts)
                  v. Ampersand Software BV ( ] )                                                 95/C 268/ 10 )
(Brussels Convention — Articles 36, 37 and 38 —
Enforcement — Judgment given on an appeal against
authorization ofenforcement — Appeal on a point oflaw —                               (Language of the case: German)
                       Stay ofproceedings)
                            ( 95/C 268/09 )                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: English)                       In Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( agents : Hendrik van Lier and Angela
                                                                       Bardenhewer ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( agents : Kay
In Case C-432/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol           Hailbronner, Professor at the University of Konstanz, and
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice           Bernd Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction                 to adopt or notify within the prescribed period all the
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial               measures necessary to comply with the requirements arising
Matters by the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division ), London,             under Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before             amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination
that court between Société d'Informatique Service                      of procedures on the award of public supply contracts and
Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO ) and Ampersand Software              repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC ( OJ
BV — on the interpretation of Article 37 (2 ) and the first            No L 127, p. 1 ) and under Council Directive 89/440/EEC of
paragraph of Article 38 of the said Convention of                      18 July 1989 amending Directive 71/305/EEC concerning
27 September 1968 ( OJ No L 304 , p . 36 ) as amended by the           coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                   contracts ( OJ No L 210, p . 1 ), the Federal Republic of
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and            Treaty, now the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
— as amended — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                 Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), President of           Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann ( Presidents of
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray               Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho
and G. Hirsch, Judges, P. Léger, Advocate-General; D.                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                     Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
operative part of which is as follows:                                 11 August 1995 , in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/6              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                                             ( Fifth Chamber)
    provisions necessary to comply with the requirements
    arising under Council Directive 88/29S/EEC of                                             of 11 August 1995
    22 March 1 988 amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating               in Case C-l /94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    to the coordination of procedures on the award of                  Consiglio di Stato ): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA
    public supply contracts and repealing certain provisions           and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and
    of Directive 80/767/EEC and under Council Directive                                              Others (M
    89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 amending Directive                      (Common organization of the market — Sugar quotas —
    71 /305/EEC concerning coordination ofprocedures for                               Transfers between undertakings)
    the award of public works contracts, the Federal
    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      ( 95/C 268/12 )
    under the EC Treaty;
2 , orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
    costs .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
H OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-l /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                       the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato (Council ofState)
                                                                       ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                       before that court between Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    SpA and Others and Ministero deH'Agricoltura e delle
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                              Foreste and Others — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                       common organization of the markets in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                         No L 177, p. 4 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 193/82 of
            Communities v. Muireann Noonan ( x )                       26 January 1982 laying down general rules for transfers of
(Appeal — Official — Admissibility ofan action challenging             quotas in the sugar sector ( OJ No L 21 , p. 3 ) — the Court
a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid           ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
down in a competition notice the lawfulness of which is                the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
                              contested)                               Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
                           ( 95/C 268/ 11 )                            H. A. Rùhl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       I . Member States may not, for the marketing year starting
In Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                               on 1 July, exercise the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on
Communities ( agent: John Forman ) — appeal against the                      them by Article 25 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of 16 September 1993 in                       organization of the markets in the sugar sector after the
Case T-60/92 Muireann Noonan v. Commission [ 1993 ]                          date of 1 March laid down by Council Regulation (EEC)
ECR 11-911 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general
other party to the proceedings being: Muireann Noonan,                       rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector, even if
represented by James O'Reilly, Senior Counsel, with an                       the Council Regulation fixing the quotas and stating
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                          that power to be applicable has been adopted after
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener the Court ( Fifth                      1 March, since no Community legislation expressly
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                            derogating from that time limit has been enacted;
( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                        2 , the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on Member States by
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a                  Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 may be
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                    exercised at the same time as an adjustment of quotas
                                                                             pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 193/82
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                    following a transfer of undertakings or factories,
                                                                             provided that the specific conditions governing the
                                                                             application of each of those provisions are complied
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                  with;
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       3 . Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 must be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that Member States may reduce
                                                                             the A quota and the B quota by 10% each;