Case C-118/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on  28 February 2006  — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, corporation tax, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation, tax system

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
käräjäoikeus lodged on 28 February 2006 — Sari Kiiski v
Tampereen kaupunki

(Case C-116/06)

(2006/C 121/08)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Tampereen käräjäoikeus (Finland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sari Kiiski

Defendant: Tampereen kaupunki

Questions referred

3. Can Directive 92/85/EEC (3) on measures for the protection
of pregnant workers and certain other workers be applic-
able, and, if that directive can be applicable, is the employ-
er's conduct described in point 1 contrary to Articles 8 and
11 of that directive, if with child-care leave continuing the
employee has lost her opportunity of enjoying the employ-
ment-based pay benefits of maternity leave?

(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-
mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
as regards access to employment, vocational training and promo-
tion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).

(2) Directive 2002/73/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive
76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treat-
ment for men and women as regards access to employment, voca-
tional training and promotion, and working (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).
(3) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-
tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently
given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within
the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L
348, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 28 February
2006 — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v
Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

(Case C-118/06)

(2006/C 121/09)

Language of the case: Italian

1. Is it direct or indirect discrimination contrary to Article 2 of
the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207/EEC (1), as amended
by Directive 2002/73/EC (2), for an employer to refuse to
make changes to the date of child-care leave which has been
granted to an employee or to interrupt it as a result of a
new pregnancy of which the employee has become aware
before the start of the child-care leave, in accordance with
the settled interpretation of national provisions according to
which a new pregnancy is not generally an unforeseen and
justified ground on the basis of which the date and duration
of child-care leave may be altered?

2. May an employer sufficiently justify his conduct, described
in point 1, which possibly constitutes indirect discrimina-
tion, from the point of view of that directive by the fact that
ordinary problems but not ones giving rise to serious distur-
bances would be
connected with changing teachers'
working arrangements and continuity of teaching, or that
the employer would under the national provisions have to
compensate the person replacing the teacher on child-care
leave for the loss of pay incurred if the teacher on child-care
leave were to return to work in the middle of the child-care
leave?

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

C 121/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Question(s) referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commissione Tributaria provinciale di Roma (Provincial
Tax Court Rome) has referred the following question to the
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net
output value arising from regular engagement in independent
activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the
rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta
Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on busi-
nesses)?

(1) OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.

Action brought on 15 March 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-141/06)

(2006/C 121/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

The period prescribed for
2002/65/EC into national law expired on 9 October 2004.

the transposition of Directive

(1) OJ L 271, p. 16
(2) OJ L 330, p. 50
(3) OJ L 144, p. 19
(4) OJ L 166, p. 51

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Hamburg lodged on 17 March 2006 — Ludwigs-Apotheke
München Internationale Apotheke v Juers Pharma Import-
Export GmbH

(Case C-143/06)

(2006/C 121/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke

Parties

Defendant: Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Aresu and J.R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Questions referred

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, having failed to adopt, in relation to financial
services other than private insurance, the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2002/65/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance
marketing of consumer financial services and amending
Council Directive 90/619/EEC (2) and Directives 97/7/EC (3)
and 98/27/EC (4), and,
in any event, by having failed to
inform the Commission of them, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

1. Is the rule in the third indent of Article 86(2) of Directive
2001/83/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a national
rule prohibiting as prohibited advertising the dispatch of
price lists for medicinal products to pharmacists if and to
the extent that the medicinal products included on those
lists are not approved in the relevant Member State but may
be imported in isolated cases from other Member States of
the European Union and other States?

2. What is the purpose of the rule according to which the title
on advertising does not cover trade catalogues and price
lists provided they include no product claims, if the scope
of application of national provisions on advertising of
medicinal products is not thereby exhaustively defined?

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.