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: Crailsheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Loan agreement linked to property purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation — Right of cancellation)
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract, door-to-door selling, interest, interpretation of the law, law of obligations, real estate credit, redemption

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.

C 86/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

2. Directive 85/577, and Article 5(2) thereof in particular, does not

preclude:

— a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to
cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to
the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for
the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of
the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor
thereof;

— a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back

immediately;

— national legislation which provides for an obligation on the
consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agree-
ment, not only to repay the amounts received under the agree-
ment but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate;

However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with its
obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the
consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks
inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceed-
ings, Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure
that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to
avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to
allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisa-
tion of those risks.

(1) OJ C 201, of 7.8.2004.

taris van Economische Zaken, the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J.
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Klčcka,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
20 October 2005, in which it ruled:

the first subparagraph of Article 236(1) of
For the purposes of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code, import duties or export duties
are legally owed where a customs duty has been incurred within the
conditions laid down by Chapter 2 of Title VII of that regulation and
where the amount of those duties could be determined by the applica-
tion of the Common Customs Tariff of the European Communities in
accordance with the provisions of Title II of that regulation.

The amount of the import duties or export duties remains legally
owed within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 236(1)
of Regulation No 2913/92 even where that amount has not been
communicated to the debtor in accordance with Article 221(1) of that
regulation.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Trans-
port Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Econo-
mische Zaken (1)

(Community Customs Code — Repayment or remission of
import or export duties — Meaning of ‘legally owed’)

(2006/C 86/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-247/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijf-
sleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 May 2004,
received at the Court on 11 June 2004,
in the proceedings
between Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV and Staatssecre-

in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van
Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Supply of services
linked to welfare and social security work and protection and
education of children or young people)

(2006/C 86/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-415/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 24 September 2004, received at the
Court on the same day, in the proceedings between Staatssecre-
taris van Financiën and Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede —
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of
the Chamber, J. Malenovský, A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet
(Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February
2006, in which it ruled: