Case C-234/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  16 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling of Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria)) — Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank & Schick GmbH (Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Interpretation of Article 15 — Jurisdiction over consumer contracts — Prize notification — Misleading advertising — Judgment on jurisdiction — Res judicata — Review on appeal — Legal certainty — Primacy of Community law — Article 10 EC)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, commercial law, consumer protection, contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 131/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

person and the ‘arm's length’ standard laid down in the OECD
model Convention on double taxation can be applied

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 10.04.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia
e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v FCE Bank plc

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that a
from the
fixed establishment, which is not a legal entity distinct
company of which it forms part, established in another Member State
and to which the company supplies services, should not be treated as a
taxable person by reason of the costs imputed to it in respect of those
supplies.

(Case C-210/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 190, 24.07.2004.

(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 9 — Fixed establish-
ment — Non-resident company — Legal relationship —
Cost-sharing agreement — OECD Convention on double
taxation — Meaning of ‘taxable person’ — Supply of services
effected for consideration — Administrative practice)

(2006/C 131/24)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling of Landesgericht
Innsbruck (Austria)) — Rosmarie Kapferer v Schlank &
Schick GmbH

(Case C-234/04) (1)

(Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001
— Interpretation of Article 15 — Jurisdiction over consumer
contracts — Prize notification — Misleading advertising —
Judgment on jurisdiction — Res judicata — Review on
appeal — Legal certainty — Primacy of Community law —
Article 10 EC)

(2006/C 131/25)

Language of the case: German

Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia
delle Entrate

Defendant: FCE Bank plc

Re:

Referring court

Landesgericht Innsbruck (Austria)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassa-
zione — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 9(1) of the Sixth
VAT Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisa-
tion of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Subsidiary, organised as a
producer unit of a company established in another Member
State — Whether the branch can be considered an independent

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rosmarie Kapferer

Defendant: Schlank & Schick GmbH

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/15

Re:

Re:

for

a preliminary

ruling — Landesgericht
REFERENCE
Innsbruck — Interpretation of Art. I0 EC — Duty of court of
appeal to review and set aside a final first instance judicial deci-
sion on jurisdiction where there is an infringement of Com-
munity law — Interpretation of Art. 15(1)(c) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 44/100 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil
and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p.1) — National law
on consumer protection providing for a right to the prize
supposedly won by the addressee of misleading advertising.

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of cooperation under Article 10 EC does not require a
national court to disapply its internal rules of procedure in order to
review and set aside a final judicial decision if that decision should be
contrary to Community law.

(1) OJ C 251 of 09.10.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 March
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribu-
nale civile e penale di Cagliari) — Enirisorse SpA v Sota-
carbo SpA

(Case C-237/04) (1)

(State aid — Articles 87 EC and 88 EC — Definition of aid
— Shareholding of a public undertaking in the capital of a
private undertaking — Right of withdrawal subject to a prior
relinquishment of all claims over a company's assets)

(2006/C 131/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Enirisorse SpA

Defendant: Sotacarbo SpA

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Cagliari —
Interpretation of Articles 87 and 88(3) EC — Meaning of State
aid — Public undertaking holding shares in the capital of a
private undertaking — Compatibility of national rules author-
ising such a shareholding with Articles 43 and 49 EC

Operative part of the judgment

National provisions such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
whereby members of a company controlled by the State may, in dero-
gation from the general law, withdraw from that company on condi-
tion that they relinquish all claims over that company's assets, are not
liable to be considered to be State aid for the purposes of Article 87
EC.

(1) OJ C 201, 07.08.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam) — Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV v
Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem

(Case C-293/04) (1)

(Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Article
220(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Application
ratione temporis — System of administrative cooperation
country —
involving the authorities of a non-member

Meaning of ‘incorrect certificate’ — Burden of proof)

(2006/C 131/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services BV

Defendant:
Arnhem

Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict