Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2006/165/31

Case C-210/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged) lodged on 5 May 2006 — CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság

IO C 165, 15.7.2006, p. 17–18 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

15.7.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged) lodged on 5 May 2006 — CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság

(Case C-210/06)

(2006/C 165/31)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Ítélőtábla (Court of Appeal Szeged)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató Betéti Társaság

Question(s) referred

1.

Is a court of second instance which has to give a decision on an appeal against a decision of a commercial court (cégbíróság) in proceedings to amend a registration, entitled to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, where neither the action before the commercial court nor the appeal procedure is inter parties?

2.

In so far as an appeal court is included in the concept of ‘court or tribunal which is entitled to make a reference for a preliminary ruling’ under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, must that court be regarded as a court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy, which has an obligation, under Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome, to submit questions on the interpretation of community law to the Court of Justice of the European Communities?

3.

Does a national measure which, in accordance with national law, confers a right to bring an appeal against an order for a preliminary reference, limit the power of the Hungarian courts to refer questions for a preliminary ruling or could it limit that power — derived directly from Article 234 of the Treaty of Rome — if, in appeal proceedings the national superior court may amend the order, render the request for a preliminary ruling inoperative and order the court which issued the order for reference to resume the national proceedings which had been suspended?

4.

A.

If a company, constituted in Hungary under Hungarian company law and entered in the Hungarian commercial register, wishes to transfer its registered office to another Member State of the European Union, is the regulation of this field within the scope of Community law or, in the absence of the harmonisation of laws, is national law exclusively applicable?

B.

May a Hungarian company request transfer of its registered office to another Member State of the European Union relying directly on community law (Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty of Rome)? If the answer is affirmative, may the transfer of the registered office be made subject to any kind of condition or authorisation by the Member State of origin or the host Member State?

C.

May Articles 43 and 48 of the Treaty of Rome be interpreted as meaning that a national rules or national practices which differentiate between commercial companies with respect to the exercise of their rights, according to the Member State in which their registered office is situated, is incompatible with Community law?
Top