Case C-300/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2006 — Ursula Voß v Land Berlin, Other party to the proceedings: The representative of the national interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, civil servant, equal pay, interpretation of the law, overtime, pay scale, working time

C 249/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht
lodged on 6 July 2006 —
Ursula Voß v Land Berlin, Other party to the proceedings:
The representative of the national interest at the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht

(Germany)

(Case C-300/06)

(2006/C 249/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ursula Voß

Defendant: Land Berlin

Other party to the proceedings: The representative of the national
interest at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Question referred

Does Article 141 EC preclude national legislation under which
remuneration for additional work which takes place outside of
normal working hours is paid at the same rate with regard to
full-time as well as part-time public servants and that rate is
lower than the pro-rata remuneration allotted to full-time
public servants as regards a period of equal
length within
normal working hours if it is predominantly women who are
employed part-time?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský sud v
Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 7 July 2006 — František
Kovaľský v Mesto Prešov and Dopravný podnik Mesta
Prešov as

(Case C-302/06)

(2006/C 249/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský sud v Prešove (Slovakia)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: František Kovaľský

Defendants: Mesto Prešov and Dopravný podnik Mesta Prešov as

Questions referred

1. Must the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Protocol to
the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, in connection with the possibility
for States to enact laws to control the use of property, be
interpreted as meaning that those laws must satisfy the
condition of being in accordance not only with the general
interest but also with the general principles of international
law?

2. Does Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention on the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
protect the property of natural and legal persons without
regard to the value of the property?

3. How may the general principles of international

law be
defined and specified for the purposes of the application of
Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention on the Protec-
tion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
lodged on 14 July 2006 —
gericht Köln (Germany),

Deutsche Telekom AG v 01051 Telecom GmbH

(Case C-306/06)

(2006/C 249/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

Defendant: 01051 Telecom GmbH

Question referred

Is a national rule that payment preventing the occurrence of
default by a debtor or terminating existing default on his part
does not depend on the time when the amount is credited to
the creditor's account but on the time when the debtor gives a
transfer order that is covered by sufficient funds or a sufficient
credit
limit and is accepted by the bank compatible with
Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating
late payment in commercial transactions?

(1) OJ L 200, p. 35.