Case C-60/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht lodged on  3 February 2006  — Grete Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Germany, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, residence, social legislation, social-security benefit, worker (EU)

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/27

Re:

and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product
safety (OJ L 11, p. 4)

Preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
— Validity of Article 2(3) of Council Decision 2003/199/EC of
18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of aldicarb in
Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal
of authorisations for plant protection products containing this
active substance (OJ 2003 L 76, p. 21)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

Examination of the question referred has not disclosed any factor of
such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2(3) of Council Deci-
sion 2003/199/EC of 18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion
of aldicarb in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing
this active substance.

(1) OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005.

the laws,

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt

regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3
December 2001 on general product safety, the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1)
of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243 of 01.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand-
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-310/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2001/95/EC — General product safety — Failure to
transpose within the prescribed period)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Landessozialgericht lodged on 3 February 2006 — Grete
Schlepps v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern

(Case C-60/06)

(2006/C 131/49)

Language of the case: German

(2006/C 131/48)

Referring court

Language of the case: French

Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Bavarian Higher Social Court)
(Germany)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M.-J. Jonczy and A. Aresu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, acting as Agent)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grete Schlepps

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Oberbayern (German
Pension Insurance Scheme, Upper Bavaria)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament

Questions referred

1. Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of
Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted
as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the benefit on
1 January 1994 — also the taking up of residence in
Austria?

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)?