Case C-312/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary lodged on 18 July 2006 — OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt. v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, corporation tax, interpretation of the law, local tax, tax relief, transitional period (EU)

C 237/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Employment
Tribunal (London South) made on 10 July 2006 — S.
Coleman v Attridge Law, Steve Law

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb
Bírósága/Hungary lodged on 18 July 2006 — OTP Garancia
Biztosító Rt. v Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

(Case C-303/06)

(2006/C 237/10)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-312/06)

(2006/C 237/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Employment Tribunal (London South)

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Legfelsőbb Bírósága/Hungary

Applicant: S. Coleman

Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law

Parties to the main proceedings

Questions referred

Applicant: OTP Garancia Biztosító Rt.

1. In the context of

the prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of disability, does the Directive (1) only protect
from direct discrimination and harassment persons who are
themselves disabled?

2. If the answer to Question (1) above is in the negative, does
the Directive protect employees who, though they are not
themselves disabled, are treated less favourably or harassed
on the ground of their association with a person who is
disabled?

3. Where an employer treats an employee less favourably than
he treats or would treat other employees, and it is estab-
lished that the ground for the treatment of the employee is
the employee has a disabled son for whom the
that
employee cares,
is that treatment direct discrimination in
breach of the principle of equal treatment established by the
Directive?

4. Where an employer harasses an employee, and it is estab-
lished that the ground for the treatment of the employee is
that
the employee has a disabled son for whom the
employee cares, is that harassment a breach of the principle
of equal treatment established by the Directive?

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion, OJ L 303, p. 16

Defendant: Vas Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

Questions referred

the Republic of Malta,

1. Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex
X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the
Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of
Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania,
the Republic of Hungary,
the
Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the
European Union is founded (1)
(‘the Act of Accession’),
which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of
Accession, and which provides that, notwithstanding Arti-
cles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to
and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reduc-
tions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings,
granted by local government for a limited period of time on
the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of Act C of 1990 on Local
Taxes, be interpreted as meaning that
it concerns a
temporary derogation which allows Hungary to maintain
the tax on economic activities, that is to say, as meaning
that the Treaty of Accession, in contemplating the possibi-
lity of maintaining the tax reductions relating to the tax on
economic activities,
the
temporary right to maintain a tax of the same type as the
tax on economic activities?

recognised that Hungary has

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/7

2. Must Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2)
(‘the Sixth Directive’) be interpreted as meaning that
it
prohibits the maintenance of a tax (the local
tax on
economic activities) on profit-making business activities
which is fundamentally characterised by the fact that it is
imposed in respect of net receipts, after deduction of the
cost of acquisition of
the goods sold and the services
supplied by third parties and the cost of raw materials? That
is to say, with reference to that article, may a tax with those
characteristics be classified as a turnover tax?

(1) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
(2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-322/06)

(2006/C 237/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrell and W. Wils, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to give effect to Direc-
tive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the
working time of persons performing mobile road transport
activities, (1)or
in any event by failing to inform the
Commission of those laws, regulations and administrative
provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be implemented
in national law expired on 23 March 2005.

(1) OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado
Mercantil 3, Barcelona, Spain lodged on 27 July 2006 —
Alfredo Nieto Nuño v Leonci Monlleó Franquet

(Case C-328/06)

(2006/C 237/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Mercantil 3, Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alfredo Nieto Nuño

Defendant: Leonci Monlleó Franquet

Question referred

Must the concept of trade marks which are ‘well known’ in a
Member State, referred to in Article 4 of First Council Directive
89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws
of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p.
1), be taken to indicate solely and exclusively the degree of
knowledge and establishment in a Member State or in a signifi-
cant part of the territory of that State, or may the determin-
ation of whether a mark is well known be linked to a territorial
scope which does not coincide with that of the territory of a
State but rather with an autonomous community, region,
district or city, depending on the goods or services which the
mark covers and the persons to whom the mark is actually
in short, depending on the market in which the
addressed,
mark is used?

— Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p.1