Case C-450/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg by order of that court of  11 November 2005  in Peter Wachter v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Germany, disability insurance, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, social security

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial-
gericht Berlin-Brandenburg by order of that court of 11
November 2005 in Peter Wachter v Deutsche Rentenversi-
cherung Bund

between M.C.J.A. Geurts and D.H.M. Vogten and The Belgian
State, Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën (Federal Finance
Authority) on the following question:

(Case C-450/05 (1))

(2006/C 74/05)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht Berlin-
Brandenburg (Germany) of 11 November 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 19 December 2005 for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Peter Wachter and Deutsche
Rentenversicherung Bund on the following question:

Are point 83 (2) Germany-Austria (e) of Parts A and B of
Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3) and point D
Germany (1) of Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
compatible with higher-ranking European law, in particular the
requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39 EC in
conjunction with Article 42 EC?

(1) Joined with Joined Cases C-396/05 and C-419/05, notice regarding

the question referred published in OJ 2006 C22, S.6.

(2) In the version applicable until the entry into force of Regulation

(EC) No 647/2005 on 5.5.2005.

(3) OJ 1971 L 149, S.2.

Must Community law, and in particular Articles 43 EC and 56
EC, be interpreted as meaning that a restriction arising from a
provision in the legislation of a region of a Member State
concerning inheritance, in this case Article 60a of the Belgian
Wetboek van Successierechten as applicable to an estate arising
in the Flemish Region, which exempts the shares in a family
company or the claims of the legal successor of the deceased,
his heir, against such a company from inheritance tax if the
company has employed at least five workers in the three years
prior to the death of the deceased, but restricts that exemption
to cases in which at least five workers have been employed in a
particular region of that Member State (in casu, the Flemish
Region), is incompatible with those articles?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Lecce by order of that court of 6 December 2005 in crim-
inal proceedings against Gianluca Damonte

(Case C-466/05)

(2006/C 74/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Burgerlijke
Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Hasselt, by order of that
court of 21 December 2005 in M.C.J.A. Geurts and D.H.M.
Vogten v The Belgian State, Federale Overheidsdienst
Financiën

(Case C-464/05)

(2006/C 74/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Burgerlijke Rechtbank van
Eerste Aanleg (Civil Court of First Instance), Hasselt (Belgium)
of 21 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27
December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy) of
6 December 2005, received at
the Court Registry on 27
December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceed-
ings against Gianluca Damonte on the following question:

Is Article 4(4 bis) of Law No 401/89 incompatible — with
resultant effects on the domestic legal system — with the prin-
ciples laid down in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty on
establishment and freedom to provide cross-border services,
also in light of the conflict between the interpretations in the
decisions of the European Court of Justice (in particular in the
the
judgment
Suprema Corte di Cassazione a Sezioni Unite (United Chambers
of the Supreme Court of Cassation); in particular, clarification
is sought as to the applicability in the Italian State of the crim-
inal provisions set out in the charge brought?

in Gambelli) and decision No 23271/04 of