Case C-246/06: 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)
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, pay, social security

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

C 212/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josefa Velasco Navarro

Defendant: Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogasa)

Applicants: United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA,
Coditel Brabant SA, Société intercommunale pour la Diffusion
de la Télévision Brutele, Wolu TV ASBL

Questions referred

1. Where it has been found by the national court that the
domestic legislation, which is incomplete, did not comply,
on 8 October 2005, with Directive 2002/74 (1) and its inter-
pretation by the Court of Justice (with regard to the Com-
munity principle of equal treatment)
in the order of 13
December 2005 (Case C-177/05), must that directive be
regarded as having direct effect as regards FOGASA, the
State guarantee institution, with effect from the following
day (9 October 2005)?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,

is the
direct effect of Directive 2002/74/EC to apply also, because
it is most beneficial to the worker (and least beneficial to
the State which has failed to fulfil
its obligations), to a
declared state of insolvency, following a court conciliation
agreement not provided for in the incomplete domestic
legislation — between the date of the entry into force of the
directive (8 October 2002) and the date by which the
Spanish State was to adopt the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions
of the directive (8 October 2005)?

(1) Directive 2002/74 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on
the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to the
protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
(Belgium) lodged on 6 June 2006 — United Pan-Europe
Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société
intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision Brutele,
Wolu TV ASBL v Belgian State

(Case C-250/06)

(2006/C 212/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Defendant: Belgian State

Questions referred

1. Must the obligation imposed on undertakings which distri-
bute television programmes by cable to distribute certain
pre-determined programmes be interpreted as conferring on
the programmes' authors a ‘special
right’ within the
meaning of Article 86 EC?

distribute

2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative,
must the rules referred to at the end of Article 86(1) EC
(namely ‘the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular …
those rules provided for in Articles 12 and Articles 81 to
89’) be interpreted as not permitting Member States to
television
which
require
undertakings
programmes by cable
certain television
to distribute
programmes by private broadcasting organisations, but
‘falling under’ (within the meaning of the Belgian Law of 30
March 1995 on broadcasting distributors networks and the
pursuit of broadcasting activities in the bilingual region of
Bruxelles-Capitale) specified public powers of
that State,
with the result that the number of programmes coming
from other Member States or non-members of the European
Union and of organisations not falling under those public
powers has fallen by the number of programmes covered by
the ‘must carry’ obligation?

3. Must Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that a prohib-
ited barrier to the freedom to provide services exists from
the time a measure taken by a Member State, in the present
case the obligation to retransmit
television programmes
over cable distribution networks, is liable to impede directly
or
the provision of
services from another Member State to recipients of those
services in the first Member State, which will be the case
where, on account of that measure, the service provider
finds itself in an unfavourable position when negotiating for
access to those networks?

indirectly, actually or potentially,

4. Must Article 49 EC be interpreted as meaning that a prohib-
ited barrier to the freedom to provide services exists because
a measure taken by a Member State, in the present case the
obligation to retransmit television programmes over cable
distribution networks, is granted only to undertakings estab-
lished in that Member State in the majority of cases, owing
to the place of establishment of those benefiting from the
measure or the fact that they have some other link to that
Member State — while there is no justification for such a
barrier based on overriding reasons of public interest in
compliance with the principle of proportionality?