Case C-242/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and T. Sahin — against the judgment of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage in Case AWB 04/45792
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), interpretation of the law, migrant worker, residence permit, stamp duty

C 212/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

4. The Court of First Instance neither examined the distinctive
character on the basis of the goods in respect of which
registration of the mark was actually sought nor accurately
determined the overall impression of the marks. It also drew
no distinction between individual goods. The Court of First
Instance overlooked the fact that the use of design as an
indicator of origin also serves the needs of consumers: the
shape of the packaging provides them with their only possi-
bility of pre-selecting it in supermarkets where numerous
bottles with the same contents are lined up on a shelf.

(1) OJ C 108, p. 20

and a review of other irregularities in the award proce-
dure that — considered in isolation — would not be
time-barred would be permissible on the basis of the
contract price correctly determined or to be determined?

2. Should the details in a tender notice relevant to determin-
ation of the contract price be subject to any special require-
ments so as to enable the conclusion to be drawn from irre-
gularities relating to the estimated contract price that the
protection of primary law is generally precluded even if the
correctly estimated contract price exceeds
the relevant
threshold amount?

(1) OJ L 209, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches
Oberlandesgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 May 2006 —
Lämmerzahl GmbH v Freie Hansestadt Bremen

(Case C-241/06)

(2006/C 212/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
State, (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Minister
voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and T. Sahin —
against the judgment of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage in
Case AWB 04/45792

(Case C-242/06)

(2006/C 212/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Applicant: Lämmerzahl GmbH

Defendant: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

Question(s) referred

as

contracts,

1. Is it compatible with Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21
December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the application of
review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works
by Council Directive
amended
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), in
particular Article 1(1) and (3), for a tenderer to be generally
barred from gaining access to a review of a contracting
authority's decision to award public contracts because the
tenderer wrongfully failed to raise an irregularity in the
award procedure within the time-limit laid down for that
purpose in national law, where the irregularity relates

(a) to the form of invitation to tender selected

or

(b) to the correctness of the determination of the contract
price (the estimate is obviously wrong or the method of
determination is not sufficiently transparent)

Raad van State, Netherlands

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, T.
Sahin

Questions referred

1(a).

In the light of paragraphs 81 and 84 of the judgment in
Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others
[2003] ECR I-12301, is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80
concerning the development of the Association to be
construed as meaning that an alien, a Turkish national,
who has complied with the rules for first admission and
residence in the country and from 14 December 2000 to
2 October 2002 was
legally employed by various
employers, but failed to request in due time the extension
of the period of validity of his residence permit, as a
result of which after the expiry of the permit and at the
time of the application for its extension, under national
law, he was neither legally resident nor entitled to work
in the country, can rely on that provision?

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/11

1(b). Is the reply to Question 1(a) affected by the fact that an
application for extension not lodged by an alien in due
time which is received within six months of the expiry of
the period of validity of the residence permit, although
under national law this application is treated as an appli-
cation for the grant of a first residence permit, is exam-
ined in the light of
the requirements laid down for
authorisation of continued residence and the alien is
allowed to await the decision on the application in the
country?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
commerce de Charleroi lodged on 30 May 2006 — SA
Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment des clubs
de football européens v Fédération internationale de foot-
ball association (FIFA)

(Case C-243/06)

(2006/C 212/18)

Language of the case: French

2(a).

Is the word ‘restriction’ in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80
to be understood to include the requirement upon an
alien, a Turkish national, to whom Decision No 1/80
applies, to pay administrative charges in connection with
the processing of an application for the extension of the
period of validity of a residence permit, failing which
payment his application will not be considered, in accord-
ance with Article 24(2) of the Vw 2000?

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings

2(b). Is the reply to question 2(a) different if the amount of the
charges for processing the application does not exceed
the costs?

Defendant: Fédération internationale de football association
(FIFA)

Applicants: SA Sporting du Pays de Charleroi, G-14 Groupment
des clubs de football européens

3. Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, which also serves
to implement the Additional Protocol to the Agreement
establishing
an Association between the European
Economic Community and Turkey (1), read in conjunction
with Article 59 of
that Protocol, be interpreted as
meaning that the amount of the administrative charges
(EUR 169.00 for the alien at
for
Turkish nationals who fall within the scope of Decision
No 1/80, payable in connection with the processing of an
application for the grant or extension of a residence
permit, may not exceed the amount of
the charge
(EUR 30.00) that can be levied on nationals of the Euro-
pean Community for the processing of an application for
examination in the light of Community law and the issue
of the corresponding residence document (see Article 9(1)
of Directive 68/360/EEC (2) and Article 25(2) of Directive
2004/38/EC (3))?

the relevant

time)

(1) JO 1972 L 293, p. 1.
(2) Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition
of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community
for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, EnglishSpecial
Edition 1968(II), p. 485).
(3) Directive 2004/38/EC of

the
Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the territory
ofthe Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and
72/194/EEC,
repealing
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and
93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

the European Parliament and of

Directives64/221/EEC,

68/360/EEC,

Question referred

Do the obligations on clubs and football players having
employment contracts with those clubs imposed by the provi-
sions of FIFA's statutes and regulations providing for the obliga-
tory release of players to national federations without compen-
sation and the unilateral and binding determination of the
coordinated international match calendar constitute unlawful
restrictions of competition or abuses of a dominant position or
obstacles to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms conferred
by the EC Treaty and are they therefore contrary to Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty or to any other provision of Community
law, particularly Articles 39 and 49 of the Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Social Único de Algeciras (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2006
— Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantia Salarial
(Fogasa)

(Case C-246/06)

(2006/C 212/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras