Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari) — Giuseppe Atzeni, Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe Ignazio Boi v Regione autonoma della Sardegna (State aid — Decision 97/612/EC — Preferential loans in favour of agricultural undertakings — Article 92(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) EC) — Admissibility — Legal basis — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sardinia, State aid, agricultural holding, agricultural structure, aid for restructuring, aid to agriculture, aid to undertakings, interpretation of the law, regional aid

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/5

Operative part of the judgment

1. A care allowance such as that provided for by the Salzburger Pfle-
gegeldgesetz does not constitute a special non-contributory benefit
within the meaning of Article 4(2b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons,
to self-employed persons
and to members of their families moving within the Community
but a sickness benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of
that regulation.

2. A member of the family of a worker employed in the Province of
Salzburg who lives with his family in Germany may, where he
fulfils the other conditions of grant, claim from the competent
institution of the worker's place of employment payment of a care
allowance such as that paid under the Salzburger Pflegegeldgesetz,
as a sickness benefit in cash as provided for in Article 19 of Regu-
lation No 1408/71, in so far as the member of the family is not
entitled to a similar benefit under the legislation of the State in
whose territory he resides.

(1) OJ C 226, 20.09.2003

— National rules which allow maritime transport services in
the Vigo estuary to be entrusted to a single operator for 20
years and which permit a more restrictive regime which is
subject to public-service obligations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that: by maintaining in force legislation which:

— allows a concession for maritime transport services in the Vigo
estuary to be granted to a single operator for a period of 20
years and which includes as a criterion for the award of that
concession experience in transport acquired in that estuary,

— allows the imposition of public service obligations on seasonal
transport

services with the islands and regular

transport
services between mainland ports,

— was not the subject of any consultation with the Commission

of the European Communities prior to being approved,

the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Articles 1, 4 and 9 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) and has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(Case C-323/03) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EEC) No 3577/92 — Maritime cabotage — Whether applic-
able to passenger transport services in the Vigo estuary —
Twenty-year concession to a single operator — Compatibility
— Possibility of concluding public service contracts or
imposing public service obligations — Standstill clause)

(2006/C 131/08)

Language of the Case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: I. Martínez del Peral and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea
and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agents)

Re:

(1) OJ C 239, 04.10.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribu-
nale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari) —
Giuseppe Atzeni, Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe Ignazio Boi
v Regione autonoma della Sardegna

(Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03) (1)

(State aid — Decision 97/612/EC — Preferential loans in
favour of agricultural undertakings — Article 92(2)(b) and
(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 87(2)(b) and (3)(a) and (c) EC) — Admissibility —
Legal basis — Legitimate expectations)

(2006/C 131/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Arts 1, 4, 7 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport within Member States
(maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) and the EC Treaty

Referring court

Tribunale di Cagliari, Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari

C 131/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Applicants: Giuseppe Atzeni,
Ignazio Boi

Francesco Atzori, Giuseppe

Defendants: Regione autonoma della Sardegna

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Cagliari,
Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari — Validity of Commission Deci-
sion 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid granted by the
Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agricultural sector (OJ L 248,
p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997
on aid granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agricultural
sector has revealed no ground capable of affecting the validity of that
decision.

(1) OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.
OJ C 71, 20.03.2004

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Köln) — Siegfried Aulinger v Bundesrepublik
Deutschland

(Case C-371/03) (1)

(Foreign and security policy — Common commercial policy
— Embargo on the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro —
Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 — Carriage of persons)

(2006/C 131/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Siegfried Aulinger

Article 1(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 of 1 June
1992 prohibiting trade between the European Economic Community
and the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro must be interpreted as
meaning that the commercial carriage of persons to or from Serbia
and Montenegro in the form of split transport was prohibited.

transport’

‘Split
is to be understood as meaning the carriage of
persons to or from the territory covered by the embargo, organised by
means of a joint operation between an undertaking established in a
Member State of the Community and an undertaking established in
the territory covered by the embargo whereby the former provides
carriage to or from the area bordering the territory covered by the
embargo and the latter provides carriage from that point into the
territory covered by the embargo or from inside that territory to that
point (with passengers changing vehicles).

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerecht-
shof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-
van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Parti-
culieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen

(Case C-513/03) (1)

(Capital movements — Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 56(1) EC) — Inheritance tax — Legal fiction that a
national of a Member State who dies within 10 years of
ceasing to reside in that Member State is deemed to have
been resident there at the time of his death — Non-member
State)

(2006/C 131/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln
—

Applicant: Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden

Defendant:
Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen

Inspecteur

van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/