CELEX: C2001/134/15
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-111/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February 2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch Exploitatie Maatschappĳ B.V.

C 134/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
8 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on              2.    In the examination of the question whether ‘the same
7 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           cause of action’ has been brought, are exclusively the
1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumificio S. Rita                     pleadings of the plaintiff in the proceedings initiated by a
S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hygrade Foods                          later action decisive and the defences and submissions of
Limited, on the following question:                                             the defendant therefore irrelevant, in particular also the
                                                                                defence of the procedural objection of set-off concerning
                                                                                a claim that is the subject-matter of a legal dispute
As a matter of Community law, does Council Regulation                           between the same parties on the basis of an action that
(EEC) No 2081/92 (1) read with Commission Regulation (EC)                       has already been brought earlier in another Contracting
No 1107/96 (2) and the specification for the PDO (3)‘prosciutto                 State?
di Parma’ create a valid Community right, directly enforceable
in the court of a member state, to restrain the retail sale as            3.    Where, on the basis of an action to enforce a contract
‘Parma ham’ of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams                        seeking damages for unlawful termination of a long-term
duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions                      obligation, the question as to whether such a long-term
of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged                  obligation existed at all is decided, is that decision also
and labelled in accordance with the specification?                              binding in subsequent proceedings between the same
                                                                                parties?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
    protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
    for agricultural products and foodstuffs (JO L 208, 24.07.1992,
    p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
    the registration of geographical indications and designations of
    origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (JO L 148, 21.06.1996, p. 1).
(3) (protected designation of origin).                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
                                                                          by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4
                                                                          No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited com-
                                                                          pany of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport &
                                                                          Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene
                                                                                                      Lauritsen
                                                                                                   (Case C-112/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 134/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February
2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                  Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V.                           European Communities by order of 9 March 2001 by the
                                                                          Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
                                                                          at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a preliminary
                          (Case C-111/01)                                 ruling in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministe-
                                                                          riet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), (2) Public limited company of
                                                                          11/9 1996, and (3) AT.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition,
                          (2001/C 134/15)                                 represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen, on the
                                                                          following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 February 2001, which was              Question 1
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v
Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V. on the following questions:           Must the provisions in Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the
                                                                          Customs Code) and in Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2)
                                                                          (the implementing regulation), in particular Article 379(1) of
1.    Does the concept of ‘the same cause of action’ in                   the implementing regulation, be construed as meaning that a
      Article 21 of the Brussels Convention extend also to the            customs debt arising by reason of an offence or irregularity
      defence of the defendant that he has extinguished a part            in connection with external Community transit cannot be
      of the claim sued for by extra-judicial set-off, where the          recovered by the office of departure from the principal in so
      part of this counterclaim that is allegedly not extinguished        far as the principal did not, before the end of the eleventh
      is the subject-matter of a legal dispute between the same           month following the date of registration of the Community
      parties on the basis of an action that has already been             transit declaration, receive the notification referred to in
      brought earlier in another Contracting State?                       Article 379 of the implementing regulation?