Case C-291/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fixing of prices, interpretation of the law, postal service, provision of services, reduced price, universal service

C 261/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Question referred

Applicant: Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs
GmbH (MDG)

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Third party: Deutsche Post AG

Question referred

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth
indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in
the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as
meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special
tariffs for business customers who give postal
items to the
sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal
service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to
undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and
give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access
point and on the same terms and conditions as business custo-
mers, without the universal service provider being permitted to
refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a
universal service?

(1) OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln (Germany)
lodged on 3 July 2006 —
Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH v Bundesrepublik
Deutschland, Third party: Deutsche Post AG

(Case C-290/06)

(2006/C 261/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Third party: Deutsche Post AG

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth
indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in
the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as
meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special
items to the
tariffs for business customers who give postal
sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal
service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to
undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and
give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access
point and on the same terms and conditions as business custo-
mers, without the universal service provider being permitted to
refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a
universal service?

(1) OJ L 176, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG
v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: MDG Magde-
burger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH

(Case C-291/06)

(2006/C 261/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Third party: MDG Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwal-
tungs GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth
indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in
the version amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (1), to be inter-
preted as meaning that, where a universal service provider
applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal
items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network,

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/9

that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special
tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the
sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the
same access point and on the same terms and conditions as
business customers, without
the universal service provider
being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obliga-
tion to provide a universal service?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court) made on 14 July 2006 — The
Queen on the application of The International Association
of Independent Tanker Owners (Intertanko), The Interna-
tional Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners (Intercargo),
The Greek Shipping Co-operation Committee, Lloyd's
Register, The International Salvage Union v Secretary of
State for Transport

(1) OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Vedat Deniz v
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: Deutsche Post
AG

(Case C-308/06)

(2006/C 261/17)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-292/06)

(2006/C 261/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Divi-
sion (Administrative Court)

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mr Vedat Deniz

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Third Party: Deutsche Post AG

Parties to the main proceedings

International Association of

Applicants: The
Independent
Tanker (Intertanko), The International Association of Dry Cargo
Shipowners (Intercargo), The Greek Shipping Co-operation
Committee, Lloyd's Register, The International Salvage Union

Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport

Question referred

Questions referred

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth
indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in
the version amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (1), to be inter-
preted as meaning that, where a universal service provider
applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal
items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network,
that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special
tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the
sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the
same access point and on the same terms and conditions as
business customers, without
the universal service provider
being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obliga-
tion to provide a universal service?

(1) OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.

1. In relation to straits used for international navigation, the
Exclusive Economic Zone or equivalent zone of a member
state and the high seas,
is article 5(2) of Directive
2005/35/EC (1) invalid insofar as it limits the exceptions in
Annex I regulation 11(b) of MARPOL 73/78 and in Annex
II regulation (6)(b) of MARPOL 73/78 to the owners,
masters and crew?

2. In relation to the territorial sea of a member state:

a. Is article 4 of the Directive invalid insofar as it requires
member states to treat serious negligence as a test of
liability for discharge of polluting substances; and/or

b. Is article 5(1) of

the Directive invalid insofar as it
excludes the application of the exceptions in Annex I
regulation 11(b) of MARPOL 73/78 and in Annex II
regulation (6)(b) of MARPOL 73/78?