Case C-383/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of  7 October 2005  in Raffaele Talotta v État belge
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, residence, tax on income

14.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/11

(b) In the event of a negative response to that question and
if other conditions are required in order for a competi-
tive relationship to be established,
is it necessary to
consider the current state of the market and drinking
habits in the Community or is it necessary also to
consider how those habits might evolve?

(c) Must any investigation be confined to that part of the
Community territory in which the advertising is dissemi-
nated?

(d) Is it necessary to consider the competitive relationship
in relation to the types of products being compared and
the way in which those types of products are generally
perceived, or is it necessary,
in order to assess the
degree of substitution possible, to take into account also
the particular characteristics of the product which the
advertiser
advertising
to promote
concerned and of the image he intends to give it?

in the

intends

(e) Are the criteria by which a competitive relationship
within the meaning of Article 2(2a) can be established
identical
the
comparison satisfies the condition referred to in para-
graph (b) of Article 3a?

to the criteria for verifying whether

3. Does a comparison of Article 2(2a) of Directive 84/450 (1)

with Article 3a of that directive mean that

(a) either any comparative advertising is unlawful which
to be identified where a
enables a type of product
competitor or the goods offered by him cannot be iden-
tified from the wording?

(b) or the lawfulness of the comparison must be considered
in the light only of national legislation other than that
by which the provisions of the directive on comparative
advertising are transposed, which could lead to reduced
protection for consumers or undertakings offering the
type of product being compared with the product
offered by the advertiser?

4. If it should be concluded that there has been comparative
advertising within the meaning of Article 2(2a), must it be
the Directive that any
inferred from Article 3a(1)(f) of
comparison is unlawful which,
in respect of products
without designation of origin, relates to products with desig-
nation of origin?

(1) Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L
290, p. 18)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion de Belgique by judgment of that court of 7 October
2005 in Raffaele Talotta v État belge

(Case C-383/05)

(2006/C 10/21)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation de
Belgique (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 7 October 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2005, for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings between Raffaele Talotta and
the État belge on the following question:

Is Article 43 (formerly Article 52) of the EC Treaty to be inter-
preted as prohibiting a provision of national
law, such as
Article 182 of the [Belgian] Royal Decree of 27 August 1993
implementing Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992,
whereby minimum tax bases are applied only in the case of
non-residents?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 28 September 2005
in Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs
GmbH

(Case C-386/05)

(2006/C 10/22)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Austria) of 28 September 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 24 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Color Drack GmbH and Lexx International
Vertriebs GmbH on the following question: