Case C-97/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid lodged on  20 February 2006  — Navicon SA v Administración del Estado
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, chartering, interpretation of the law, tax exemption, tax harmonisation, vessel

C 131/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

2. If so, are that provision and point C Germany (1) of Annex
VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible with higher-
ranking European law,
in particular the requirement of
freedom of movement under Article 39 EC in conjunction
with Article 42 EC?

(1) OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Ordinario di Novara lodged on 5 January 2006 — CARP
SNC, Di Moleri Luigi and Corsi Valter v ECORAD SRL.

(Case C-80/06)

(2006/C 131/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

3. Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision
1999/93/EC to be regarded as being invalid on the basis
that they are contrary to the principle of proportionality in
so far as they require all producers to comply with the attes-
tation of conformity procedure No 1 in order to be able to
mark doors fitted with panic bars they have themselves
manufactured with the EC conformity mark (the mandate to
adopt the relevant technical standards being given to the
CEN)?

(1) Commission Decision 1999/93/EC of 25 January 1999 on the
procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products
pursuant
to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as
regards doors, windows, shutters, blinds, gates and related building
hardware (OJ 1999 L 29, p. 51).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Madrid lodged on 20 February
2006 — Navicon SA v Administración del Estado

(Case C-97/06)

(2006/C 131/51)

Tribunale Ordinario di Novara

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carp Snc di L. Moleri e V. Corsi, Associazione Nazio-
nale Artigiani Legno e Arredamenti.

Referring court

Defendant(s): Ecorad Srl

Question(s) referred

1. Are Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision
1999/93/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is not
possible for doors intended to be fitted with panic bars to
be manufactured by operators (door fitters) who do not
comply with the requirements of the system of attestation
of conformity No 1?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes: regardless of whether
technical standards have been adopted by the European
Committee for Standardisation (CEN), are the requirements
under Articles 2 and 3 and Annexes II and III of Decision
1999/93/EC legally binding from the date when that deci-
sion entered into force in so far as regards the type of attes-
tation of conformity procedure to be complied with by
manufacturers (door fitters) of doors intended to be fitted
with panic bars?

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Navicon SA

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred

1. Is the term ‘chartering’

in the exemption provided for in
Article 15(5) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as
including only chartering of the entire capacity of the vessel
(full chartering) or as including chartering relating to a part
or percentage of the vessel's capacity (partial chartering)?

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/29

2. Does the Sixth Directive preclude a national

law which

2.

allows exemption only for full chartering?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
– Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(a) Is the Directive to be interpreted to the effect that notifi-
cation may not be issued to the employment authority
under Article 3 of the Directive until after the consulta-
tion procedure has been concluded?

(b) If Question 2(a) should be answered in the affirmative
must both the negotiations on the avoidance of collec-
tive redundancies or the reduction of the number of
workers affected and the negotiations on the mitigation
of the consequences have been concluded before notifi-
cation is issued?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Berlin, lodged on 28 February 2006 — Annette Radke v
Achterberg Service GmbH & Co. KG

(1) OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

(Case C-115/06)

(2006/C 131/52)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Annette Radke

Action brought on 28 February 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-119/06)

(2006/C 131/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and M. Mollica, Avvocato)

Defendant: Achterberg Service GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Italian Republic

Questions referred

Form of order sought

1.

(a) Is Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to collective redundancies to be interpreted to the effect
that the consultation procedure under Article 2 of the
Directive is concluded as soon as direct negotiations
between the employer and the workers' representatives
have failed or, where the employer and/or workers'
representatives refer the matter to an establishment-level
arbitration committee provided for by national law, do
the negotiations before that committee also have to
have been concluded?

(b) If the second alternative part of the question should be
answered in the affirmative does the Directive require,
before the notices of dismissal are announced,
the
conclusion of both the negotiations before the arbitra-
tion committee as to ways and means of avoiding
reducing the number of
collective redundancies or
workers affected and the negotiations on ways and
means of mitigating the consequences by recourse to
accompanying social measures?

for

Sanitarie

framework agreement

— A Declaration that, as the region of Tuscany and the
(public health authorities)
Tuscan Aziende
concluded the regional
the
supply of healthcare transport services on 11 October 1999
with the Confederazione delle Misericordie d'Italia, ANPAS
— the Tuscan regional committee and the Croce Rossa
Italiana — Tuscan division, and subsequently extended that
framework agreement by means of a memorandum of
in April
understanding on 28 March 2003 and, finally,
2004, on the basis of Regional Decision No 379 of 19
April 2004, concluded a new regional framework agree-
ment maintaining
above-
mentioned organisations and entrusting the administration
of the services in question to them for the period from
January 2004 to December 2008, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil
its obligations under Council Directive
92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination
of procedures for the award of public service contracts and,
in particular, Articles 11, 15 and 17 thereof.

relationship with the

the

— An order that the Italian Republic should pay the costs.