Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61993O0428

	Název: Title:		ORDER OF THE COURT OF 16 MAY 1994. WINDING UP OF MONIN AUTOMOBILES-MAISON DU DEUX ROUES. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: JUGE-COMMISSAIRE AU TRIBUNAL DE COMMERCE DE ROMANS - FRANCE. LACK OF JURISDICTION. CASE C-428/93.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1994 PAGES I-1707

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		COMPETITION;RULES APPLYING TO UNDERTAKINGS;FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS;MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT;COMMERCIAL POLICY;EXTERNAL RELATIONS;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		[243] Salonia Case 126/80 Salonia v Poidomani and Giglio [1981] ECR 1563 · Falciola Case C-286/88 Falciola [1990] ECR I-191 · [571] Meilicke Case C-83/91 Meilicke v ADV/ORGA [1992] ECR I-4871


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Monin Automobiles (“Monin”) was a company under French law which specialized in the distribution of the Asian vehicles. Monin imported those automobiles also by way of “parallel imports” Since those vehicles imported from other Member States were regarded as second hand vehicles, they had to be approved on an individual basis. The French administrative authorities did not carry out such approvals within reasonable time, so that motorists who had been unable to have their vehicles registered within the statutory two-month period were prosecuted by the police and thereupon demanded rescission of the sale contract and back-pay of the money paid and damages. As a consequence, Monin was forced to cease trading. Those difficulties gave rise to the institution by order of the Tribunal de Commerce, Romans of proceedings for compulsory reconstruction of the company. Such reconstruction is to be executed by the Juge-Commissaire who,
inter alia,
has the obligation of collecting and coordination of information. The Tribunal de Commerce, however, has jurisdiction to issue the judgement closing the proceedings.
In the course of the proceedings Monin claimed that the Juge-Commissaire could not order it to be wound up ‘without first receiving a reply to the question whether the cessation of payments was attributable to unlawful conduct on the part of the French authorities (…) with respect to Articles 85 and 30 of the Treaty, conduct which might mean compensation was payable by the State (…)”. The Juge-Commissaire therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice six questions on the interpretation of Community law. In its reference the Juge Commissaire observed that there was a legal connection between the questions thus raised and the proceedings before him, since the interpretation requested would enable him to asses the cogency of Monin’s argument that the company should be kept in existence. The interpretation of Community law would enable him to decide whether the arguments based on Community law were used urely to gain time. While the answers to the administrative court dealing with the problem, they are also of some relevance for the application of the rules governing the collective insolvency procedure, which is a matter for him. If in the absence of the interpretation requested in the reference the Juge-Commissaire orders the company to be wound up, Monin would cease to have legal existence and thus be no longer be able to plead infringement of the Treaty to obtain compensation for the damage it has suffered.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court refused to give a judgement but rather held by way of order under Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure that it manifestly had no jurisdiction on the matter.
Several doubts had been raised in the course of the proceedings as the its admissibility. In particular, it had been argued that the Juge-Commissaire, presently performing an administrative function rather than a judicial function, was not a “court or tribunal” in the meaning of Article 177; that the proceedings before the Juge-Commissaire were not such in the meaning of Article 177; that the Juge-Commissaire had not established that a ruling of the Court was necessary; and that the reference constituted a case of abuse because it was obvious that the interpretation requested did not have any relation to the subject matter of the main action and was not objectively required to resolve that action.
The questions referred by the Juge-Commissaire are intended to establish the chances of success of actions brought by Monin to establish the liability of the French authorities. Those questions were not, however, brought before the Juge-Commissaire nor could they be. The questions therefore “do not involve an interpretation of Community law objectively required for the decision to be taken” by the national court. “Consequently, applying its consistent case-law ( [243]
Salonia;

Falciola;
see also [571]
Meilicke
), the Court manifestly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions submitted” to it. “Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure must therefore be applied, and it must be held that the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.”

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
IN THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY, THE COURT OF JUSTICE MANIFESTLY LACKS JURISDICTION TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE AN INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW OBJECTIVELY REQUIRED FOR THE DECISION TO BE TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL COURT IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE IT. THAT IS THE CASE IF A JUGE-COMMISSAIRE WINDING UP A COMPANY REFERS QUESTIONS TO THE COURT WHICH CONCERN RULES AND PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH HE DOES NOT HAVE TO APPLY IN THE WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):