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 C2007/117/11

Case C-126/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2007 — Reisebüro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 8–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 7–7 (MT)

26.5.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2007 — Reisebüro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

(Case C-126/07)

(2007/C 117/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court or tribunal

Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: Reisebüro Bühler GmbH

Respondents: Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

Questions referred

1.

Is the Arbitration Court for the resolution of .eu domain name disputes attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Czech Arbitration Court), established pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1), empowered to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under the second paragraph of Article 234 EC?

2.

If the Court's answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Does the power in Article 22(5) of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 permit alternative dispute resolution rules (ADR Rules) to be made, according to which, inter alia, a respondent can not only apply for a complaint to be dismissed but can also seek a declaration that a complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of administrative proceeding (Paragraph B12(h) of the ADR Rules)?

3.

If the Court's answer to the second question is in the negative:

Is an ADR panel of the Arbitration Court entitled to determine the application for a declaration on the basis of any other Community law or on the basis of general legal principles of Community law arising from the constitutional traditions of the Member States?

(1)  OJ L 162, p. 40.

Top