Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio in La Cascina Soc. coop. arl. and Others v Ministero della Difesa and Others and Consorzio G.f.M. v Ministero della Difesa and Others (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 29, first paragraph, subparagraphs (e) and (f) — Obligations of service providers — Payment of social security contributions and taxes )
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, payment, public contract, social-security contribution, tax

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

measures or arrangement or that he has brought such proceedings
within that period.

(First Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

(1) OJ C 190, of 24.7.2004.

in Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo
regionale del Lazio in La Cascina Soc. coop. arl. and
Others v Ministero della Difesa and Others and Consorzio
G.f.M. v Ministero della Difesa and Others (1)

(Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article
29, first paragraph, subparagraphs (e) and (f) — Obligations
of service providers — Payment of social security contribu-
tions and taxes )

(2006/C 86/11)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: references for a preli-
minary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale ammi-
nistrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy), made by decisions of 22
in the
April 2004, received at the Court on 2 June 2004,
proceedings between La Cascina Soc. coop. arl, Zilch Srl (C-
226/04) and Ministero della Difesa, Ministero dell'Eco-
nomia e delle finanze, Pedus Service, Cooperativa Italiana
di Ristorazione soc. coop. arl (CIR), Istituto nazionale per
l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni (INAIL), and between
Consorzio G.f.M. (C-228/04) and Ministero della Difesa, La
Cascina Soc. coop arl, the Court (First Chamber), composed
of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric,
K. Lenaerts and E.
Judges; M. Poiares
Juhász (Rapporteur),
Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006,
in
which it ruled:

Subparagraphs (e) and (f) of the first paragraph of Article 29 of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coor-
dination of procedures for the award of public service contracts do not
preclude a national law or administrative practice according to which
a service provider, who has not fulfilled obligations relating to social
security contributions and taxes by having paid in full when the
period prescribed for submitting the request
to participate in the
contract expires, may subsequently regularise his position

— pursuant to a tax amnesty or leniency measures adopted by the

State, or

— pursuant to an administrative arrangement of payment in instal-

ments or debt relief, or

— by bringing administrative or legal proceedings,

provided that, within the period prescribed by national law or admin-
istrative practice, he provides evidence that he has benefited from such

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 25 October 2005

in Case C-229/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht
in Bremen: Crail-
sheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke
and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (1)

(Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from
business premises — Loan agreement
linked to property
purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation — Right
of cancellation)

(2006/C 86/12)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-229/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in
Bremen (Germany), made by decision of 27 May 2004,
received at the Court on 2 June 2004,
in the proceedings
between Crailsheimer Volksbank eG and Klaus Conrads,
Joachim
Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche,
Nitschke, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A.
Timmermans, President of
J. Makarczyk, C.
Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kuris,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal
Administrator, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which
it ruled:

the Chamber,

1. Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20
December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts
negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as
meaning that when a third party intervenes in the name of or on
behalf of a trader in the negotiation or conclusion of a contract,
the application of the Directive cannot be made subject to the
condition that the trader was or should have been aware that the
contract was concluded in a doorstep-selling situation as referred
to in Article 1 of the Directive.