Case C-97/96

Verband deutscher Daihatsu-Händler eV

v

Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

‛Company law — Annual accounts — Penalties for non-publication — Article 6 of First Directive 68/151/EEC’

Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas delivered on 3 July 1997   I-6845

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 4 December 1997   I-6858

Summary of the Judgment

1. Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Companies — Directive 68/151 — Annual accounts — Penalties for non-publication — National rules restricting to certain categories of persons the right to apply for the application of those rules — Not permissible

   (EC Treaty, Art. 54(3)(g); Council Directive 68/151, Arts 3 and 6)

2. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Question as to the direct effect of a provision imposing obligations on an individual — No need for a ruling

   (EC Treaty, Art. 177; Council Directive 68/151, Art. 6)

1.  Article 6 of First Directive 68/151 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State from restricting to members or creditors of a company, the central works council or the company's works council the right to apply for imposition of the penalty provided for by the law of that Member State in the event of failure by a company to fulfil the obligations regarding disclosure of annual accounts laid down by First Directive 68/151.

   Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, which refers to the need to protect the interests of others generally, without distinguishing or excluding any categories falling within the ambit of that term, and the fourth recital in the preamble to and Article 3 of Directive 68/151, which confirm the concern to enable any interested persons to obtain information, preclude Article 6 of the directive from being interpreted in such a way as to restrict to creditors of the company the right to apply for imposition of penalties.

2.  Since a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual, and cannot therefore be relied upon as such against such a person, there is no need for the Court, in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling, to examine whether Article 6 of Directive 68/151 has direct effect.