You are on page 1of 2

30.12.

2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/37

4. Does the limitation period for a claim which seeks to estab- Parties to the main proceedings
lish State liability under Community law and is based on the
inadequate transposition of a directive and an accompanying
(de facto) import ban commence, irrespective of the applic- Applicant: A.G. Winkel
able national law, only with the full transposition of the
directive, or can the limitation period begin to run, in
accordance with national law, when the first injurious effects
have already been produced and further injurious effects are Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
foreseeable? If full transposition has a bearing on the
commencement of the limitation period, is this true in
general or only if the directive confers a right on individuals?

5. Given that the Member States may not frame the conditions Questions referred
for reparation of loss and damage in respect of claims
seeking to establish State liability under Community law less
favourably than those relating to similar domestic claims and
1. Are rules which, as regards the right to a suckler-cow
it may not be made virtually impossible or excessively diffi-
premium, require, on the basis of the usual animal
cult to obtain reparation, are there, generally, objections to a
husbandry practice, that a cow has calved at least once in the
national rule under which liability for damages does not
period which runs from twenty months before to four
arise where the injured party has wilfully or negligently failed
months after the date on which the application period
to avert the damage by employing a legal remedy? Are there
started and its calf was not removed from the herd within
also objections to this ‘primacy of primary legal protection’
four months after its birth, compatible with Article 3(f) of
where it is subject to the proviso that it must be reasonable
Regulation (EC) (1) No 1254/1999?
for the party concerned? Is the fact that the relevant court is
likely to be unable to answer the questions of Community
law at issue without making a reference to the Court of 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria
Justice of the European Communities or that Treaty infringe- must be applied to establish whether the herd is intended for
ment proceedings under Article 226 EC are already pending rearing calves for meat production and which cows belong
sufficient to make it unreasonable under European Com- to that herd?
munity law?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, of 17 May 1999, on the common


(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 185. organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).
(2) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.
(3) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi


Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyar-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van ország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytár-
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 saság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v
October 2006 — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

(Case C-446/06) (Case C-447/06)

(2006/C 326/78) (2006/C 326/79)

Language of the case: Dutch Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Fővárosi Bíróság


C 326/38 EN Official Journal of the European Union 30.12.2006

Parties to the main proceedings Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2006 —
Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik
Applicants: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Deutschland
Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai
Részvénytársaság (Case C-448/06)

(2006/C 326/80)
Defendants: Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testü-
lete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete Language of the case: German

Referring court

Questions referred Verwaltungsgericht Köln

1. Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex Parties to the main proceedings
X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the
Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Applicant: Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH
Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded (‘the Act of Accession’) (1), which is applic-
Question referred
able pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and
which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of
the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October
December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % 2003 (1) amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No
of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local govern- 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establish-
ment for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 ment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal
and 7 of the Helyi Adókról Szóló 1990. Évi C. Törvény (Act products in foodstuffs of animal origin (2) void on account of a
C of 1990 on local taxes), be interpreted as meaning that it breach of higher-ranking Community law (Articles 1(1) and 3 of
concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 in conjunction with
maintain the business tax until that time? Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April
1996 (3)), in so far as application of an injection solution as a
pharmaceutical form is excluded by virtue of the note marked
2. In the light thereof, must Article 33 of Sixth Council Direc- (*) against the listing of progesterone in Annex II to Council
tive 77/388/EEC (‘the Sixth Directive’) (2) be interpreted as Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90?
meaning that thereunder a Member State may not maintain
or introduce a tax on profit-making business activities the
basis is of assessment of which is made up of net receipts, (1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 9.
after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold (2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw (3) OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3.
materials?

3. Depending on the answer given to the two questions above,


and having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities, must the present practice of
Hungary's first and second-level tax authorities, which
consists in avoiding any examination of the compatibility Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
with Community law of the local business tax, by suggesting travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2006
to taxpayers that they amend their tax returns by means of — Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances
self-revision, thus making difficult or impossible the practical sociales pour indépendants
application of Community law and requiring taxpayers to
initiate tax proceedings with uncertain consequences, be (Case C-449/06)
interpreted as impeding the exercise of their rights and there-
fore as meaning that Hungary is failing to comply with (2006/C 326/81)
Article 10 of the EC Treaty?
Language of the case: French
(1) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
(2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles