Case C-45/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg lodged on  30 January 2006  — Campina GmbH & G. formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, interpretation of the law, milk, milk fat, principle of proportionality, regulation of agricultural production, sanction (EU)

C 154/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 February 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-
Esztergom Megyei Bíróság) — Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft.,
Rottelma Kft. v Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási
Hivatal

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2006 —
the European
Hippocrate Vounakis v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-322/05 P) (1)

(Case C-261/05) (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Promotion — Article 90(2) of the
Staff Regulations — Complaint — Time-limits — Appeal
manifestly unfounded)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure
— Accession to the European Union — Sixth Directive
77/388/EEC — Application ratione temporis — Article 33
— Local tax on economic operations — Lack of jurisdiction
of the Court )

(2006/C 154/08)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 154/07)

Parties

Language of the case: Hungarian

Appellant: Hippocrate Vounakis (represented by: S. Orlandi,
avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-
Keyser, Agents)

Parties

Re:

Applicants: Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft., Rottelma Kft.

Defendant: Komáron-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case T-326/03 Vounakis v
Commission rejecting, as inadmissible, an application to annul
the decision of the Commission not to promote the appellant
to grade A4 in the 2002 promotion exercise

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Komárom-Esztergom
Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Art. 33 of Sixth Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Prohibition of taxes capable of
being characterised as turnover taxes — National rules author-
ising the local authorities to introduce a tax on economic
operations

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities does not have the
jurisdiction to answer
referred by the Komárom-
Esztergom Megyei Bíróság.

the questions

(1) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr Vounakis is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 257 of 15.10.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
des Landes Brandenburg lodged on 30 January 2006 —
Campina GmbH & G. formerly TUFFI Campina emzett
GmbH v Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-45/06)

(2006/C 154/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg (Germany)

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Campina GmbH & G.
emzett GmbH

formerly TUFFI Campina

Defendant: Haupzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Question referred

Does the system of penalties laid down in the second sub-
paragraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
536/93 of 9 March 1993 (1) as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (2), contravene the
principle of proportionality in cases where the time-limit is
exceeded only marginally and, moreover, without appreciable
effect?

2. If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, is
the rule established by Art. 30 (4) of Directive 93/37/EEC or
the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1) and (2) of Directive
2004/18/EC (in cases where that is the relevant provision),
according to which, if tenders appear to be abnormally low
in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall,
before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details
of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers
relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking
account of the explanations received, while not presenting
the characteristics of a fundamental principle of Community
law, nevertheless an implied consequence of or a principle
deriving from the principle of competition, considered in
conjunction with the principles of administrative transpar-
ency and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and
is it therefore, as such, directly binding, taking precedence
over possibly incompatible national provisions adopted by
the Member States to regulate public works contracts to
which Community law is not directly applicable?

(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p.22.
(2) OJ 1998 L 142, p. 22.

(1) OJ L 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ L 134, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato, Quinta Sezione lodged on 20 March 2006 —
Santorso Soc. coop. arl v Comune di Torino

(Case C-148/06)

(2006/C 154/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven lodged on 23 March 2006
— Stichting ROM-projecten v Staatssecretaris van Econo-
mische Zaken

(Case C-158/06)

(2006/C 154/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Santorso Soc. coop. arl

Defendant: Comune di Torino and Others

Question(s) referred

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stichting ROM-projecten

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

1. Does the rule laid down in Article 30(4) of Directive
93/37/EEC (1) or the similar rule contained in Art. 55 (1)
and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (2) (in cases where that is
the relevant provision), that, where tenders appear to be
abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting
authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request,
in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender
which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent
elements taking account of the explanations received, consti-
tute a fundamental principle of Community law?

Questions referred

1. Is Article 6 of the Commission Decision of 16 October
1995 concerning a
contribution from the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European
Social Fund (ESF) for an operational programme within the
framework of the SME Community initiative for the benefit
of areas eligible under Objectives 1 and 2 in the Netherlands
(C(95) 1753) unconditional and sufficiently clear and
precise to be directly applicable in the national legal order?