Case C-402/05 P: Appeal brought on  17 November 2005  by Yassin Abdullah Kadi against the judgment made on  21 September 2005  by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Afghanistan, appeal, export restriction, human rights, international sanctions

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 November
2005 in B.A.S. Trucks B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-400/05)

(2006/C 36/37)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

abovementioned supplies from VAT must attach the right to
deduct to those supplies in so far as (in particular under the
first indent of Article 28b.B(1) of the Sixth Directive) they
take place in another Member State which has excluded
them from exemption pursuant to Article 28(3)(a) of the
Sixth Directive,
in conjunction with Item 2 of Annex E
thereto?

(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 has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 11 November 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between B.A.S. Trucks
B.V. and the Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following
question:

Does the fact that dumpers are,
in view of their distinctive
characteristics, also designed for use on paved, public roads
preclude their classification under subheading 8704 10 of the
Combined Nomenclature?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
that court of 11
der Nederlanden by judgment of
November 2005 in VDP Dental Laboratory N.V. v Staatsse-
cretaris van Financiën

(Case C-401/05)

(2006/C 36/38)

(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 11 November
2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VDP
Dental Laboratory N.V. and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on
the following questions:

1. Is Article 13.A[(1)](e) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that dental prostheses supplied by a
taxable person who contracts out the manufacture thereof
to a dental technician are covered by the notion of dental
prostheses supplied by dental technicians?

2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

Appeal brought on 17 November 2005 by Yassin Abdullah
Kadi against the judgment made on 21 September 2005 by
the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-
315/01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of
the European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-402/05 P)

(2006/C 36/39)

(Language of the case: English)

An appeal against the judgment made on 21 September 2005
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/
01 between Yassin Abdullah Kadi and the Council of the Euro-
pean Union and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 17 November 2005 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi,
residing in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), represented by Ian Brownlie
CBE QC, David Anderson QC, Pushpinder Saini, Barrister and
Guy Martin, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

Justice of

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

a) set aside,
Instance.

in whole,

the decision of

the Court of First

b) make a declaration that Council Regulation (EC) No

881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (1) is void and a nullity.

Is Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State which has exempted the

c) order that the Council and/or Commission pay the Appel-
lant's costs of this appeal and of the proceedings before the
Court of First Instance.

C 36/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in holding that Art. 308 CE, in conjunction with Arts. 60
and 301 CE, was a sufficient
legal basis for Regulation
881/2002.

The applicant further submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in its interpretation of the relevant principles of interna-
tional law:

— the Court's judgement conflates the question of the UN
Charter as a source of treaty obligations with the different
question of the effects for Member States of decisions of the
Security Council;

— the Court erred in law in assuming that resolutions of the
Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter are to be automatically inserted into the sphere of
domestic law and jurisdiction;

— the Court erred in holding that it has no power to review
resolutions adopted

the lawfulness of Security Council
under Chapter VII of the UN Charter;

— the reasoning of the Court exhibits a substantial inconsis-

tency in its treatment of the principle of jus cogens;

— the Court has failed to appreciate the legal significance of
the failure of the Security Council to establish an indepen-
dent international court.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) NO 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing
certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No
467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to
Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze
of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of
Afghanistan, OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9-22.

Action brought on 21 November 2005 by the Commission
the Hellenic
of

against

the European Communities
Republic

(Case C-410/05)

(2006/C 36/40)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Justice of

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of
the European Communities on 21
November 2005 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by G. Zavvos and G. Braun, of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not noti-
fying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2001/97/EC (1) of
the
Council of 4 December 2001 amending Council Directive
91/308/EEC on prevention of
the financial
system for the purpose of money laundering, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

the European Parliament and of

the use of

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic
law expired on 15 June 2003.

(1) OJ No L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 76.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Social No 33, Madrid, Spain, made by order of that court
of 14 November 2005 in Félix Palacios de la Villa v Corte-
fiel Servicios SA, José María Sanz Corral and Martin Tebar
Less

(Case C-411/05)

(2006/C 36/41)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social No 33,
Madrid, Spain, of 14 November 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 22 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Félix Palacios de la Villa and Cortefiel
Servicios SA, José María Sanz Corral and Martin Tebar Less on
the following questions:

Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of age and is laid
down in Article 13 EC and Article 2(1) of Directive
2000/78, (1) preclude a national law (specifically, the first para-
graph of the Single Transitional Provision of Law 14/2005 on
clauses in collective agreements concerning the attainment of
normal retirement age) pursuant to which compulsory retire-
ment clauses contained in collective agreements are lawful,
where such clauses provide as sole requirements that workers
must have reached normal retirement age and must have
fulfilled the conditions set out in the social security legislation
of
to draw a retirement
the Spanish State for entitlement
pension under their contribution regime?