Case C-442/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of  3 November 2005  in Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, quasi-fiscal charge, tax harmonisation, water supply

C 60/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

10) Would it make any difference to the answer to 9) if the
parent company provided an undertaking to a court on
behalf of itself and all the companies within the same
group that they will not by reason of the reflagging termi-
nate the employment of any person employed by them
(which undertaking did not require the renewal of short
term employment contracts or prevent the redeployment
of any employee on equivalent terms and conditions)?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
transport between Member States and between Member States and
third countries.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
Protodikio Athinas by decision of
that court of 30
December 2004 in Aikaterini Stamatelaki v Organismos
Asfaliseos Eleftheron Epangelmation (O.A.E.E.)

(Case C-444/05)

(2006/C 60/36)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
nanzhof by order of that court of 3 November 2005 in
Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserver-
sorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien

(Case C-442/05)

(2006/C 60/35)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal
Finance Court) of 3 November 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Finanzamt Oschatz and Zweckverband
zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-
Westelbien on the following question:

Does connection of the water distribution network to a prop-
erty owner's installation (the so-called ‘household connection’)
by a water supply undertaking for a separately calculated fee
come under the heading of ‘the supply of water’ within the
meaning of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes (Annex D (2) and Annex H
Category 2)?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of
the Diikitiko Protodikio
Athinas of 30 December 2004, received at the Court Registry
on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Aikaterini Stamatelaki and Organismos Asfaliseos
Eleftheron Epangelmation (Insurance Institution for the Liberal
Professions; O.A.E.E.), a legal person governed by public law,
on the following questions:

treatment of a person insured with it

(A) Does a national rule which excludes in all circumstances
reimbursement by a domestic insurance body of the cost
of
in a private
hospital abroad except in cases concerning children up to
the age of 14, while on the other hand providing for the
possibility of reimbursement of the relevant cost if the
treatment
in question takes place in a public hospital
abroad, following authorisation which is granted provided
that the insured person cannot obtain appropriate treat-
ment without undue delay from a hospital that has entered
into an agreement with his insurance body, constitute a
restriction on the principle of freedom to provide services
within the Community which is enshrined in Article 49 et
seq. of the EC Treaty?

(B) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can
restriction be regarded as dictated by overriding
that
interest, such as in particular the
reasons in the general
need to avoid the risk of seriously undermining the finan-
cial balance of the Greek social security system, or the
maintenance of a balanced hospital and medical service
open to all?

(C) If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative,
can a restriction of this nature be regarded as permissible
in the sense that it is not contrary to the principle of
proportionality, that is to say that it does not go beyond
what is objectively necessary in order to attain the objec-
tive at which it is aimed and that the same result cannot be
achieved by less restrictive rules?