Case C-206/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Groningen (Netherlands) lodged on  2 May 2006  — Essent Netwerk Noord BV v Aluminium Delfzijl BV, Essent Netwerk Noord BV v 1. Saranne BV, and 2. BV Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, and Aluminium Delfzijl BV v State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic Affairs)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: additional duty, electrical energy, electrical industry, electricity supply, interpretation of the law, liberalisation of the market

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/17

2. In the event that the answer to that question is no: should
Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down
by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
in the version of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of
the Council of 30 June 1997 amending
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of
certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
trative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
television broadcasting activities, be interpreted to the effect
that
in
broadcasts or parts of broadcasts where the broadcaster
offers viewers the opportunity to participate in the broad-
caster's prize games by means of
immediately dialling
premium rate telephone numbers, and thus in return for
payment?

includes announcements

‘television advertising’

(1) OJ 298, p. 23.
(2) OJ 202, p. 60.

— if considered appropriate, refer the case back to the Court

of First Instance for judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs, including the costs

incurred by eventual intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance in its
judgement of 23 February 2006:

a. misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 1, 2 and 3(1) of the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
1989 on the control of concentrations between undertak-
ings, as amended by Regulation (EC) No. 1310/97 (the
Merger Regulation) (1) and:

b. violated the principle of proportionality and misinterpreted

and misapplied Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation;

which led it wrongly to dismiss the Appellant's application and
to uphold the decision of the Commission in so far as it
rejected the first set of commitments offered by the Appellant
and Haniel as insufficient.

Appeal brought on 4 May 2006 by Cementbouw Handel
& Industrie BV against the judgement of the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) deliv-
ered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-282/02: Cementbouw
Handel & Industrie B.V. v Commission of the European
Communities

(1) OJ L 180, p. 1.

(Case C-202/06 P)

(2006/C 178/27)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
Groningen (Netherlands) lodged on 2 May 2006 — Essent
Netwerk Noord BV v Aluminium Delfzijl BV, Essent
Netwerk Noord BV v 1. Saranne BV, and 2. BV Nederlands
Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor, and Aluminium Delfzijl
BV v State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Economic
Affairs)

Parties

Appellant: Cementbouw Handel & Industrie BV (represented by:
W. Knibbeler, O. Brouwer and P.J. Kreijger, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Referring court

(Case C-206/06)

(2006/C 178/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance of 23

February 2006 by which it:

a) dismissed the action brought by the Appellant

b) ordered the Appellant to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings

Rechtbank Groningen

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Essent Netwerk Noord B.V.

Defendant: Aluminium Delfzijl B.V.

Other parties: B.V. Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor,
Saranne BV, BV Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor,
State of the Netherlands (Ministry for Economic Affairs)

C 178/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Questions referred

Parties to the main proceedings

1. Must Articles 25 EC and 90 EC be construed as precluding
a statutory rule under which domestic purchasers of electri-
city are required during a transitional period (31 August
2000 to 31 December 2000 inclusive) to pay to their net
operator a price surcharge on the amounts of electricity
delivered for their use, in the case where that surcharge is to
be paid by the net operator to an undertaking designated by
the legislature for the purpose of defraying non-market-
compatible costs which have arisen as a result of obligations
incurred, or investments made, by that undertaking prior to
liberalisation of the electricity market, and that undertaking:

— is the joint subsidiary of the four domestic generating

undertakings;

— was solely responsible, in the period in question (2000),
for the non-market-compatible costs which arose during
that year;

— requires, by general agreement, an amount of NLG 400
million (EUR 181 512 086.40) in order to cover those
costs incurred in that year; and

— so far as the income generated by the price surcharge
is required to

exceeds the aforementioned amount,
forward such surplus to the Minister?

2. Does the rule mentioned in the first question satisfy the

requirements of Article 87(1) EC?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbit-
rage de Belgique lodged on 10 May 2006 — Government
the French Community, Walloon Government v
of

Flemish Government

(Case C-212/06)

(2006/C 178/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'arbitrage de Belgique (Belgium)

Applicant: Government of
Government

the French Community, Walloon

Defendant: Flemish Government

Question(s) referred

1. Does a care insurance scheme — which (a) has been estab-
lished by an autonomous Community of a federal Member
State of the European Community, (b) applies to persons
who are resident in the part of the territory of that federal
State for which that autonomous Community is competent,
(c) provides for reimbursement, under that scheme, of the
costs incurred for non-medical assistance and services to
persons with serious, long-term reduced autonomy, affiliated
to the scheme, in the form of a fixed contribution to the
related costs and (d) is financed by members' annual contri-
butions and by a grant paid out of the budget for expendi-
ture of the autonomous Community concerned — consti-
tute a scheme falling within the scope ratione materiae 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 Community (1), as defined in
Article 4 thereof?

2. If the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is to be
answered in the affirmative: must the regulation cited above,
in particular Articles 2, 3 and 13 thereof and, in so far as
they are applicable, Articles 18, 19, 20, 25 and 28 be inter-
preted as precluding an autonomous Community of a
federal Member State of the European Community from
adopting provisions which,
in the exercise of its powers,
allow only persons residing in the territory for which that
autonomous Community is competent and, in relation to
citizens of the European Union, persons employed in the
territory and who are resident in another Member State to
be insured under and covered by a social security scheme
within the meaning of that regulation, to the exclusion of
persons, whatever their nationality, who reside in a part of
the territory of the federal State for which another autono-
mous Community is competent?

3. Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as
precluding an autonomous Community of a federal Member
State of the European Community from adopting provisions
which,
in the exercise of its powers, allow only persons
residing in the territory for which that autonomous Com-
munity is competent and, in relation to citizens of the Euro-
pean Union, persons employed in that territory and who are
resident in another Member State to be insured under and
covered by a social security scheme within the meaning of
that regulation, to the exclusion of persons, whatever their
nationality, who reside in a part of the territory of the
federal State for which another autonomous Community is
competent?