Case C-166/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bolzano lodged on  28 March 2006  — Eurodomus SrL v Comune di Bolzano
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Autonomous Province of Bolzano, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, public administration, right of establishment, town-planning regulations

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 27 March 2006
— Leasys SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

applicant,
infringe Community law by introducing legal
measures which disapply a decision of an administrative
court that is res judicata?

(Case C-165/06)

(2006/C 154/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Leasys SpA

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 7

Question referred

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net
output value arising from regular engagement in independent
activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the
rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta
Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on produc-
tion activities)?

(1) OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
civile di Bolzano lodged on 28 March 2006 — Eurodomus
SrL v Comune di Bolzano

(Case C-166/06)

(2006/C 154/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Bolzano (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurodomus SrL

Defendant: Comune di Bolzano

2. Did the Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano infringe Com-
munity law by adopting Article 107 c. 25 LP No 13/1997,
which, by amending town planning legislation, removed the
consent
for commercial purposes granted in respect of
buildings constructed with building consent in accordance
with previous
town planning legislation under which
consent
for commercial purposes had been granted for
those buildings?

3. By adopting and implementing the Provincia Autonoma di
Bolzano's obstructive measure ‘tout court’, did the Commis-
sario del governo italiano also infringe Community law?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione lodged on 3 April 2006 — Minis-
tero delle Finanze v CO.GE.P Srl

(Case C-174/06)

(2006/C 154/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministero delle Finanze

Defendant: CO.GE.P Srl

Question referred

Does the grant to an entity of a right to use, including exclu-
sively, public property without provision of services of a nature
such as to outweigh that of the permission to use the property,
for a specified period and against payment of a much lower
amount than the value of the property, which is made, at the
request of the party concerned, by a public entity carrying on a
business, through the enactment of an administrative measure
rather than by contract, such as the concession, under national
law, of property owned by the State constitute the letting of
immovable property exempt from VAT under Article 13B(b) of
Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC? (1)

Questions referred

(1) OJ 1977, L 145 p. 1.

1. Does a regulatory authority which,

in the exercise of its
powers, may affect the substantive economic position of the