You are on page 1of 1

C 283/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.11.

2007

6. Does it follow from Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) national law, if such application is based on the new version
No 258/97 which states that ‘[w]here necessary, it may be of that law, which the Commission has held to be compa-
determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in tible with the common market, although the measure
Article 13 whether a type of food or food ingredient falls concerns periods of time before that new version and the
within the scope of paragraph 2 of this Article’ that in the amendments which were decisive for the declaration of
event of a dispute an undertaking must be regarded as under compatibility were not yet applicable to that period, and the
an obligation to seek that determination and to await the case file does not reveal any infringement of the rights of
results thereof? May, in addition, any indications be deduced third parties?
from that provision and from Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 concerning the burden of producing evidence
(Darlegungslast) and the substantive burden of proof?

(1) OJ L 43, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital
Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie
SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina
Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 13 August 2007 —
(Case C-386/07)
Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit
(2007/C 283/14)
(Case C-384/07)
Language of the case: Italian
(2007/C 283/13)

Language of the case: German


Referring court

Consiglio di Stato
Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA,
Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA
Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH
Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica
Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit
Divisione Servizi SpA

Questions referred
Questions referred
1. Does the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC require that the
national court should, on grounds of the prohibition 1. ‘Does the mandatory nature of the minimum fees and
contained in that provision on putting State aid into effect, charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers consti-
refuse further grants of State aid to a beneficiary of aid who tute a measure which favours members of the profession
under national law is in principle entitled to aid, although concerned, contrary to Articles 81 EC and 10 EC (formerly
the Commission, while regretting the non-notification of the Articles 85 and 5 of the EC Treaty)?
aid, has not adopted either a decision under Article 4(2) of
Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 or a 2. Does the prohibition of the reduction by courts, when deter-
measure under Article 14 of that regulation, and the case file mining costs, of the minimum limits set in the individual
does not reveal any infringement of the rights of third items of the scale, by reason of the mandatory nature of the
parties? minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided
by lawyers, constitute a measure which favours members of
2. Does the prohibition under Article 88(3) EC on putting State the profession concerned, contrary to the rules in
aid into effect preclude the application of a provision of Articles 81 EC and 10 EC?