Case C-228/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006 — Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Germany, Schengen Agreement, Türkiye, association agreement (EU), foreign national, freedom to provide services, international transport, interpretation of the law, road transport

C 190/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

3. If question one is answered in the negative,

is the then
applicable provision in Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) of the
annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as
meaning that the journey time by sea on a regular and
direct link between a geographical point of the Community
and a geographical point in a third country by means of
vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of
the
animals is immaterial provided that the animals are regularly
fed and watered and, in such a case, does a further period of
29 hours of
transport by road begin immediately after
unloading the lorry at the port of destination?

4. If question three (point 2.3) is answered in the affirmative,
is the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive
91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the staff in
charge of the transport are required to state in the route
plan the times at which the animals transported were fed
and watered during the ferry journey and that a pre-typed
statement indicating that 'during the ferry journey, animals
are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at
midday, and in the evenings and mornings' does not meet
the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC, with the effect in
law that the failure to sate the measures actually taken to
care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export
refund in so far as the proof required cannot by provided
by any other means?

(1) OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19.
(2) OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17.

Questions referred

1. Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November
1970 (1)
to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey to
be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a restriction
on freedom to provide services if a Turkish national who
works in international transport for a Turkish undertaking
as a driver of a lorry registered in Germany has to be in
possession of a Schengen visa to enter Germany under Para-
graph 4(1) and Paragraph 6 of
the Aufenthaltsgesetz
(German law on residence) of 30 July 2004 and Article 1(1)
of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) even though on the
date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force he
was permitted to enter the Federal Republic of Germany
without a visa?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
should Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol be inter-
preted as meaning that the Turkish nationals mentioned in
(1) do not require a visa to enter Germany?

(1) JO 1972 L 293, p.4.
(2) OJ 2001 L 81, p.1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006
— Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim,
Ibrahim Savatli v
Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur
für Arbeit

(Case C-228/06)

(2006/C 190/13)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine
Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-229/06)

(2006/C 190/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli

Parties to the main proceedings

Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of
Germany)

Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit
Germany)

(Federal Republic of

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel