Case C-80/06: 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.
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community certification, building industry, interpretation of the law, joinery, production control, quality label, safety standard, technical standard

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)?