Case C-407/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België by judgment of that court of  8 November 2005  in Reyniers & Sogama bvba v (1) Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (2) Belgian State
Date: 2006-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs document, customs formalities, interpretation of the law

C 22/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.1.2006

— The Commission considers that the content of those condi-
tions is clear and that they should have been observed by
DEI however strict they may be, so as to ensure equal treat-
ment not only of the tenderers but also of interested parties
who could have taken part in the tender procedure in ques-
tion had they known that the contracting authority would
adhere to conditions other than those which it itself had
laid down by means of the invitation to tender.

— Also, in the Commission's submission, the need for swift
award of the contracts in question, which is invoked by the
Greek authorities, does not justify the failure to observe
during
conditions which the
contracting authority itself laid down.

tender procedure

the

— The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Directive
93/38/EC and under the principles of transparency and of
equal treatment of tenderers.

(1) OJ No L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by judgment of
that court of 18
November 2005 in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v
P. Jurriëns Beheer BV

(Case C-406/05)

(2006/C 22/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 November
2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 November 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Staatssecre-
taris van Financiën and P. Jurriëns Beheer BV on the following
questions:

1. As regards the management of a collective investment fund,
is the application of Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth Direc-
tive (1) dependent merely on the nature of
the service
provided or is application thereof also subject to the condi-
the management services are provided by the
tion that

person who maintains a legal relationship with the partici-
pants in the fund concerned?

2. Can a service agreed with an organisation which, in regard
to its business activities, consists of the management of a
collective investment fund, be deemed to constitute manage-
ment for the purposes of the exemption mentioned under
Question 1 if the person performing the service does so in
his capacity as a director of that organisation?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
– Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België by judgment of
that court of 8
November 2005 in Reyniers & Sogama bvba v (1) Belgisch
Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (2) Belgian State

(Case C-407/05)

(2006/C 22/15)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie van
België (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 8 November 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 21 November 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Reyniers &
Sogama bvba and 1. Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
2. Belgian State on the following questions:

that procedure,

‘Are Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
1062/87 (1) of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the imple-
mentation of the Community transit procedure and for certain
simplifications of
inserted by Article 1 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 (2) of 29 May 1990
amending that regulation, Article 34 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2726/90 (3) of 17 September 1990 on Community
transit, and Article 49 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
1214/92 (4) of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implemen-
tation of the Community transit procedure and for certain
simplifications of that procedure, to be interpreted as meaning:

28.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/9

— that, despite the fact that the notification to the declarant
made no mention of the three-month period within which
proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the
irregularity was actually
place where the offence or
committed can be furnished to the office of departure to
the satisfaction of the competent authorities, a court is able
to rule, in accordance with facts which are able to support
its decision, that notification without mention of the three-
month period nevertheless meets the objective sought by
the legal rule; or

— that the notification to the declarant must compulsorily
mention the three-month period within which proof of the
regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the
offence or irregularity was actually committed can be furn-
ished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the
competent authorities, with the result that the competent
authority can commence recovery only after it has explicitly
informed the declarant that it has three months within
which to furnish the proof requested and in the case where
that proof has not been furnished within that period?’

the European Parliament and of

of
the Council of 5
November 2002 amending the Directives on maritime
safety and the prevention of pollution from ships, or by not
the Italian
notifying the Commission of such measures,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive.

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national
expired on 23 November 2003.

law

(1) OJ 2002 L 324, p. 53.

(1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21.
(3) OJ 1990 L 262, p. 1.
(4) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 November 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-413/05)

(2006/C 22/16)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 22 November 2005
in Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH v Telekom-
Control-Kommission

(Case C-426/05)

(2006/C 22/17)

(Language of the case: German)

Justice of

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of
the European Communities on 22
November 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by K. Simonsson and C. Loggi, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by not taking all the necessary legal and admin-
istrative measures to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC (1)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of
22 November 2005, received at
the Court Registry on 1
December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Tele2 UTA Telecommunication GmbH and Telekom-
Control-Kommission on the following questions:

1. Are Articles 4 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a
common regulatory framework for electronic communica-
tions networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002
L 108, p. 33) (‘Directive 2002/21/EC’) to be interpreted as
meaning that the term ‘parties affected’ includes undertak-
ings operating as competitors on the relevant market in
respect of which specific obligations are not imposed, main-
tained or amended?