Case C-465/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl v Mariella De Zotti (Independent commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Entitlement of a commercial agent to an indemnity after termination of the contract)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, remuneration of work, right of establishment, sales occupation, self-employed person, work contract

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/19

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Klagenfurt
— Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National
legislation prohibiting the door-to-door sale of gold, silver and
platinum jewellery

Operative part of the judgment

Article 28 EC does not preclude a national provision by which a
Member State prohibits in its territory the selling of, and collecting of
orders for, silver jewellery in a doorstep-selling situation where such a
provision applies to all relevant traders in so far as it affects in the
same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products
and that of products from other Member States. It is for the national
court to ascertain whether, having regard to the circumstances in the
main proceedings, the application of the national provision is liable to
prevent the access to the market of products from other Member
States or to impede that access more than it impedes the access to the
market of domestic products and,
if that is the case, to determine
whether the measure concerned is justified by an objective in the
general
in the
interest within the meaning given to that concept
Court's case-law or by one of the objectives listed in Article 30 EC,
and whether that measure is proportionate to that objective.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 February
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-455/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/55/EC — Asylum policy — Mass influx of displaced
persons — Temporary protection — Minimum standards —
Failure to transpose the directive within the prescribed
period)

temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced
persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts
between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing
the consequences thereof (OJ 2001 L 212, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to trans-
pose into domestic law Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July
2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in
the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures
promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving
such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
cassazione) — Honyvem Informazioni
suprema di

Commerciali Srl v Mariella De Zotti

(Case C-465/04) (1)

(Independent commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC —
Entitlement of a commercial agent to an indemnity after
termination of the contract)

(2006/C 131/34)

Language of the case: Italian

(2006/C 131/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. O'Reilly, Agent)

Defendant: Mariella De Zotti

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: C. White)

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
transpose within the period prescribed Council Directive
2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassa-
zione — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Council Direc-
tive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of
the Member States relating to self-employed
the laws of
commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Right of a
commercial agent to an indemnity or damages on termination
of contract

C 131/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. Article 19 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December
1986 on the coordination of the laws of
the Member States
relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as
meaning that the indemnity for termination of contract which
results from the application of Article 17(2) of
the directive
cannot be replaced, pursuant to a collective agreement, by an
indemnity determined in accordance with criteria other than those
prescribed by Article 17, unless it is established that the applica-
tion of such an agreement guarantees the commercial agent, in
every case, an indemnity equal to or greater than that which
results from the application of Article 17.

2. Within the framework prescribed by Article 17(2) of Directive
86/653, the Member States enjoy a margin of discretion which
in relation to the criterion of
they may exercise,
equity.

in particular,

(1) OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
finanzhof) — Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Keller
Holding GmbH

Preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
43 EC), Article 58 and Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now
Article 48EC and 56 EC) — Corporation tax — Non-deduct-
ibility of expenditure having a direct economic link to tax-free
profits — Expenditure incurred by a parent company estab-
lished in a Member State linked to its shareholding in a
subsidiary established in the same Member State, in connection
with dividends distributed by a second-tier subsidiary which are
exempted from tax by virtue of
this latter
company is established in another Member State

the fact

that

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of
2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a
Member State which excludes the possibility of deducting for tax
purposes financing costs incurred by a parent company subject to
unlimited tax liability in that State in order to acquire holdings in a
subsidiary where those costs relate to dividends which are exempt from
tax because they are derived from an indirect subsidiary established in
another Member State or in a State which is party to the Agreement,
whereas such costs may be deducted where they relate to dividends
paid by an indirect subsidiary established in the same Member State
as that of the place of the registered office of the parent company and
which, in reality, also benefit from a tax exemption.

(Case C-471/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.

(Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Right of a
parent company to deduct costs relating to its shareholdings
— Non-deductible financing costs having an economic link
with dividends exempt from tax — Dividends distributed by
an indirect subsidiary established in a Member State other
than that in which the parent company has its seat)

(2006/C 131/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT
and Duties Tribunal, Manchester) — Dolland & Aitchison
Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

(Case C-491/04) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Customs value — Customs
import duties — Delivery of goods by a company established
in Jersey and supplies of services effected in the United
Kingdom)

(2006/C 131/36)

Language of the case: English

Applicant: Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land

Referring court

Defendant: Keller Holding GmbH

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester