Case C-493/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — L.H. Piatkowski v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — grote ondernemingen Eindhoven (Freedom of movement for workers — Social security — Person simultaneously employed in one Member State and self-employed in another Member State — Person subject to the social security legislation of each of those States — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14c(b) and Annex VII — Social security contributions levied on interest paid by a company established in one Member State to a person resident in another Member State)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, interpretation of the law, social security, social-security benefit, tax on income, worker (EU)

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/15

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 April 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia) — Agip Petroli
SpA v Capitaneria di porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di
porto di Siracusa — Sezione staccato di Santa Panagia,
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

(Case C-456/04) (1)

notwithstanding that technically the conditions laid down by Article
3(3) of the regulation apply, the result of the international voyage in
ballast is that the shipowner benefits, in respect of all matters relating
to manning from the application of the law of the flag State, frus-
trating the aim of Article 3(2) of the regulation, which is to allow the
application of the law of the host State to all matters relating to
manning in the case of island cabotage. Second, there must also be
objective evidence to show that the essential aim of the international
voyage in ballast is to avoid the application of Article 3(2) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 3577/92, in favour of Article 3(3).

(Maritime cabotage — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 — Law
applicable to the manning of vessels over 650 gt carrying out
island cabotage — Meaning of ‘voyage which follows or
precedes’ a voyage to or from another State)

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

(2006/C 143/26)

Language of the case:Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agip Petroli SpA

Defendants: Capitaneria di porto di Siracusa, Capitaneria di
porto di Siracusa — Sezione staccato di Santa Panagia, Minis-
tero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale per la Secilia — Interpretation of Article 3(3) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to mari-
time transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ
1992 L 364, p. 7) — Law applicable to the manning of vessels
over 650 gt carrying out island cabotage –Meaning of voyage
which follows or precedes a voyage to or from another
Member State

Operative part of the judgment

A ‘voyage which follows or precedes’ the cabotage voyage, as referred
to in Article 3(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7
December applying the principle of
freedom to provide services to
maritime transport within Member States (maritme cabotoge), means
in principle any voyage to or from another State, whether or not the
vessel has cargo on board. However, sham voyages without cargo on
board carried out to circumvent Regulation (EC) No 3577/92 cannot
first,
be permitted. Such an abuse can be found to exist only if,

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch) — L.H. Piatkowski v Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst — grote ondernemingen Eindhoven

(Case C-493/04) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers — Social security —
Person simultaneously employed in one Member State and
self-employed in another Member State — Person subject to
the social security legislation of each of those States — Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14c(b) and Annex VII —
Social security contributions levied on interest paid by a
company established in one Member State to a person resi-
dent in another Member State)

(2006/C 143/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L.H. Piatkowski

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — grote onderne-
mingen Eindhoven

C 143/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Herto-
genbosch — Interpretation of Article 14c(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application
of social security schemes to employed persons,
to self-
employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997
L 28, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21
March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation
No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No
118/97 — Application of Article 14c(b) in conjunction with
Annex VII, point 1 — Social security — Person simultaneously
subject to the legislation of two Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles
39 and 43 EC) concerning, respectively, freedom of movement for
workers and freedom of establishment, and Article 14c(b) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application
of social security schemes to employed persons,
to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the Com-
munity, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation
(EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not
precluding Netherlands legislation which includes,
in the basis for
calculating social security contributions, interest such as that paid, in
the case in the main proceedings, by a company established in the
Netherlands to a Netherlands national resident in Belgium who is
subject, under that regulation and taking into account the nature of
his occupational activities, to the social security legislation of both
those Member States.

(1) OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 March
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden) — A.C. Smits-Koolhoven v Staats-
secretaris van Financiën

(Case C-495/04) (1)

(Directive 95/59 — Tax on the consumption of manufactured
tobacco — Herbal cigarettes — Used exclusively for medical
purposes)

(2006/C 143/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.C. Smits-Koolhoven

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen — Interpretation of Art. 7(2) of Council Directive
95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover
taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco
(OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40 — Medicinal cigarettes — Exclusively
medical purpose — Therapeutic or prophylactic purposes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995
on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that cigarettes
without tobacco which do not contain substances having a medical
effect but which are presented and marketed as an aid to giving up
smoking are not ‘used exclusively for medical purposes’ within the
meaning of the second subparagraph of that provision.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht — Ergün Torun v Stadt Augsburg)

(Case C-502/04) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement
for
workers — Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80
of the Association Council — Child of a Turkish worker who
has reached the age of majority and completed a course of
vocational training in the host Member State — Criminal
conviction — Effect on right of residence)

(2006/C 143/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)