Case C-182/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative lodged on  10 April 2006  — État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of workers, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, tax law, tax on income, tax relief

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

Question referred

The alteration to the development plan concerning the
construction operations falling within SPA and SCIp IT 912007
Murgia Alta was not the subject of an appropriate assessment
of the impact on the area, as provided for in Article 6(3) of
Directive 92/43/EEC.

The resolution of
the municipality of Altamura and the
Regional Executive, which approved the said alteration to the
development plan, is in contravention of the abovementioned
in that, although the said alteration
Community provisions,
was liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT
9120007 Murgia Alta, an impact assessment procedure was not
carried out.

The reason stated for the absence of an assessment clearly does
not comply with Community law. The reason given is that the
size of the construction operations fell below the thresholds set
by the domestic law implementing Directives 85/337/EEC, as
amended, (2) and 92/43/EEC. However, under Article 6(3) of
Directive 92/43/EEC ‘any plan or project’ likely to have a signif-
icant impact on the site must be subject to an impact assess-
ment, and this obligation is not limited to a list of projects the
size of which exceeds the threshold set.

(1) OJ L 206, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 175, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour adminis-
trative lodged on 10 April 2006 — État du grand-duché de
Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-
Lakebrink

(Case C-182/06)

(2006/C 143/50)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative (Luxembourg)

Is Article 39 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
national rules, such as those introduced in the Grand-Duchy of
Luxembourg by Article 157ter of the Law on Income Tax,
under which a Community national not resident in Luxem-
bourg who receives
income of Luxembourg origin from
employment, which constitutes the major part of his taxable
resources, cannot rely on his negative rental income relating to
property situated in another Member State,
in this case
Germany, which he does not himself occupy, for the purposes
of the determination of the tax rate applicable to his Luxem-
bourg income?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
München lodged on 13 April 2006 — RUMA GmbH v
Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

(Case C-183/06)

(2006/C 143/51)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RUMA GmbH

Defendant: Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

Question referred

Is the Combined Nomenclature (CN), in the version of Annex I
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (1) of 11
September 2003 amending Annex I
to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
and on the Common Customs Tariff,
to be interpreted as
meaning that keypads which have non-conductive contact pins
on the underside are to be classified under heading 8538?

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: État du grand-duché de Luxembourg

(1) OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1.

Defendants: Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink