Case C-50/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, European Commission, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, admission of aliens, public order, public safety

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln by order of that court of 26 January 2006 in
Arcor AG & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany, inter-
ested party: Deutsche Telekom AG

(Case C-50/06)

(2006/C 96/04)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Maria Condou-Durande and Rudi Troos-
ters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by not applying to citizens of the European
Union Council Directive 64/221/EEC (1) of 25 February
1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning
the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are
justified on grounds of public policy, public security or
public health, but rather applying to them general legisla-
tion on aliens which makes it possible to establish a
systematic and automatic connection between a criminal
conviction and an expulsion measure, the Kingdom of the
Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive
64/221/EEC;

2. order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Netherlands Vreemdelingenwet

Article 8(e) of
(Law on
Aliens) 2000 provides that an alien will be lawfully resident in
the Netherlands as a Community national only on condition
that that national is resident on the basis of a rule, including a
rule pursuant to the EC Treaty.

Most of the provisions of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 are
otherwise applicable in full to 'aliens' in general, that term being
construed, in accordance with Article 1(m) of the Law, as also
covering nationals of a Member State of the EU. As such, no
reference is made in the Vreemdelingenwet
to Directive
64/221/EEC and the principles contained in that directive are
not incorporated in the text of the Law. A fortiori, the obliga-
tions resulting from Directive 64/221/EEC have not been trans-
posed in a clear and unambiguous manner in that legislation.

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117.

(Case C-55/06)

(2006/C 96/05)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln
(Administrative Court, Cologne)
(Germany) of 26 January
2006, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2006, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Arcor AG & Co.
interested party:
KG and Federal Republic of Germany,
Deutsche Telekom AG, on the following questions:

1. Is Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 (1) to be
understood as meaning that the conditions for cost-orienta-
tion under Article 3(3) of
regulation lay down
minimum requirements in the sense that national law of the
Member States may not deviate from that standard to the
prejudice of beneficiaries?

that

2. Are imputed interest and cost-accounting depreciation also
encompassed by the cost-orientation requirement under
Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000?

3. If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

(a) Is the calculation basis for that interest and depreciation
the replacement value of the assets after the depreciation
made prior to the time of valuation, or is the calculation
basis
value,
expressed in terms of current daily prices at the time of
valuation?

replacement

exclusively

current

the

(b) In any event, do the costs used as the calculation basis
for imputed interest and cost-accounting depreciation,
in particular those which are not directly associated
with service (overheads), have to be proven by compre-
hensible documents detailing the costs of the notified
operator?