Case C-322/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, arrangement of working time, national implementing measure, road safety, road transport

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