CELEX: C2000/047/26
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-453/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)

19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/17
2. Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the              Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1)
     action.                                                           Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage
                                                                       Group Ltd (by counterclaim), on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        1. Is Article 81EC (ex Article 85) to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a party to a prohibited tied house agreement may rely
All the Member States are under a duty to transpose the                    upon that article to seek relief from the courts from the
Directive into mandatory national provisions in due time. The              other contracting party?
period provided for in Article 25 of the Directive expired on
31 December 1997, without Austria having                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes is the party claiming
                                                                           relief entitled to recover damages alleged to arise as a result
— restricted the time-limit for the granting of individual                 of his adherence to the clause in the agreement which is
     licences where there are special circumstances to a                   prohibited under Article 81?
     maximum of four months;
                                                                       3. Should a rule of national law which provides that Courts
— transposed into national law the maximum time-limit of                   should not allow a person to plead and/or rely upon his
     two months for decisions in the event of withdrawal,                  own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of
     amendment or temporary suspension pursuant to                         damages be allowed as consistent with Community law?
     Article 9(4) of the Directive;
                                                                       4. If the answer to Question 3 is that in some circumstances
— laid down an appropriate procedure for appealing pursuant                such a rule may be inconsistent with Community law
     to Article 9(4) and (6): the Constitutional Court has                 what circumstances should the national court take into
     established the failure to transpose (2) and is now rou-              consideration?
     tinely (3) refusing to deal with complaints addressed to it
     against decisions of the Telecom Control Commission,
     referring to the existence of a right to appeal to the
     Administrative Court, which, in its view, stems directly
     from Community law. However, there has not thus far
     been any Declaration from the Administrative Court
     confirming that it has jurisdiction. Nor can, in the Com-
     mission’s view, the right of appeal to the Administrative
     Court be regarded, contra legem, purely on the basis of the       Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the
     case-law of the Constitutional Court as sufficient for            judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third
     reasons of legal certainty.                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Com-
                                                                                   mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.
(2) In Declaration B 1625/98 of 24.2.1999 relating to a similar
    provision in a directive.                                                                   (Case C-456/99 P)
(3) Decisions of 11.3.1999 in complaint proceedings B 1637/98, B
    2175/98, B. B 1768/98 and B 1884/98.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 47/27)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
                                                                       1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              30 November 1999 by J, represented by Georges Vandersan-
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                 den and Laure Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against             service in Luxembourg at the office of Société de Gestion
Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan                 Fiduciaire, 24 Rue Beck.
against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC)
         plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-453/99)                             — Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           28 September 1999 in Case T-28/98;
                            (2000/C 47/26)
                                                                       — Consequently, grant the form of order sought by the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     appellant at first instance, and therefore annul the Com-
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                    mission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing the appellant’s
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 4 August 1999, which               place of recruitment as Brussels;
was received at the Court Registry on 30 November 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.