This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0497
Case C-497/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.
Case C-497/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.
Case C-497/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.
OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
16.5.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 113/19 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Charlottenburg (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2008 — Amiraike Berlin GmbH Aero and Campus Cottbus Ltd.
(Case C-497/08)
2009/C 113/38
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Amtsgericht Charlottenburg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Amiraike Berlin GmbH
Other party: Aero Campus Cottbus Ltd
Question referred
Are the provisions of primary Community law, in particular, Articles 10 EC, 43 EC and 48 EC and the principle according to which Member States as between each other must accord mutual recognition to their respective legal orders to be interpreted as meaning that in ratifying Community law a Member State (‘the first Member State’) has indicated, in principle, its acceptance of the effects on its national territory of expropriatory measures imposed under the legal order of a second Member State, at any rate, where the company (created as a matter of private law) affected by the expropriatory measure previously elected on an intentional basis — exercising its Community right to freedom of establishment — to submit itself to the company law regime of the second Member State, responsible for imposing the expropriation, notwithstanding the fact that it exercises its business activities in the first Member State and holds company assets affected by the expropriatory measure situated in that State?