Case C-212/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'arbitrage de Belgique lodged on  10 May 2006  — Government of the French Community, Walloon Government v Flemish Government
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Flemish Community, French-speaking Community, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, residence, social security, social-security harmonisation

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?

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/19

4. Must Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC be interpreted as not
permitting the scope of such a system to be limited to
persons who are resident in the territorial components of a
federal Member State of the European Community which
are covered by that system?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by the European Agency
for Reconstruction (EAR) against the judgement of the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23
February 2006 in Case T-471/04: Georgios Karatzoglou v
European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

(Case C-213/06 P)

(2006/C 178/30)

dant as a contract for an indefinite period of employment, it
decided that the European Agency for Reconstruction (herein-
after EAR) could only terminate that contract in two circum-
stances — substantial reduction or winding-up of EAR's opera-
tion — which would be tantamount to considering the contract
as a contract for a fixed term of employment the duration of
which depended upon those criteria.

The applicant further maintains that the Court of First Instance
erred in law in so deciding because Council Regulation No
2667/2000 (1) which lays down rules concerning the func-
tioning of EAR forbids the EAR to contract such an obligation
since it is obliged to limit the recruitment of staff to what is
strictly necessary with regard to the evolving needs of the EAR.

The applicant finally submits that should the EAR have created
a legitimate expectation not
to terminate the defendant's
contract except in the specific circumstance of a significant
reduction of its operation, such an expectation would be illegi-
timate with regard to the obligation deriving from the Condi-
the European
tions of Employment of Other Servants of
Communities and from the Council regulations governing the
creation and functioning of the EAR.

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ L 305, p. 7.

Parties

Appellant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (repre-
sented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal,
lawyers and K. Niafas, agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Georgios Karatzoglou

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgement of the Fourth Chamber of the
Court of First Instance of 23 February 2006 in Case T-471/
04 (Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Recon-
struction (EAR) ) in full;

— Give judgement itself;

— Dismiss the action for annulment of the decision of the
EAR of 26 February 2004 terminating the contract of the
applicant at first instance as a member of the termporary
staff;

— Order the applicant at first instance and respondent on

appeal to pay the costs of the appeal.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia lodged on 11
May 2006 — Colasfalti srl v Provincia di Milano, ATI
Legrenzi Srl,Impresa Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i
Paccani Snc

(Case C-214/06)

(2006/C 178/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant(s): Colasfalti srl

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
law when, having qualified the contract signed by the defen-

Defendant(s): Provincia di Milano, ATI Legrenzi Srl,Impresa
Costruzioni Edili e Stradali dei F. 11i Paccani Snc