Case C-371/03: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln) — Siegfried Aulinger v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Foreign and security policy — Common commercial policy — Embargo on the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro — Regulation (EEC) No 1432/92 — Carriage of persons)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, carriage of passengers, international sanctions, interpretation of the law

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/