Case C-343/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2006 — Peter Funk v Stadt Chemnitz
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, driving licence, harmonisation of standards, interpretation of the law, traffic regulations

C 281/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 August 2006 —
Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschland Radio, Hessischer
Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher
Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg,
Saarländischer
Südwestrundfunk, West-
deutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v
GEWA, Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung
mbH

Rundfunk,

within the Directive's scope of application (by argumentum a
contrario)?

(1) OJ L 134, p. 114.

(Case C-337/06)

(2006/C 281/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Bayerischer Rundfunk, Bayerischer Rundfunk,
Deutschland Radio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher
Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk
Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrund-
funk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen

Respondent: GEWA, Gesellschaft
Wartung mbH

für Gebäudereinigung und

Intervening party: Heinz W. Warnecke, trading as Großbauten
Spezial Reinigung

Questions referred

of Article

subparagraph

1. Where it appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the
of Directive
second
2004/18/EC (1), is the term ‘financed … by the State’ to be
interpreted as including indirect financing given to bodies
by means of fees imposed, on persons who have receiving
equipment available for use, by the State pursuant to the
obligation imposed on it by constitutional law to ensure the
independent financing and existence of those bodies?

1(9)

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, where it
appears in the first alternative of letter (c) of the second sub-
paragraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC, is the
term ‘financed … by the State’ to be interpreted as being
satisfied only in circumstances in which the State has direct
influence on the award of contracts by the body financed by
the State?

3. If the second question is answered in the negative, is letter
(c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive
2004/18/EC to be interpreted, in the light of Article 16(b),
as meaning that the only services removed from the Directi-
ve's scope of application are those specified in Article 16(b)
and that other services which are not related to programme
material but are of a subsidiary or ancillary nature are

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Chemnitz (Germany) lodged on 8 August 2006 —
Peter Funk v Stadt Chemnitz

(Case C-343/06)

(2006/C 281/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Chemnitz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Funk

Defendant: Stadt Chemnitz

Question(s) referred

1. Is a Member State permitted, in conformity with Article 1(2)
and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1)
of 29 July 1991, to require a holder of a driving licence
issued in another Member State to apply to the national
authority of the first Member State for recognition of the
right to drive in its territory where the holder of the foreign
EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first
Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or
cancelled for some reason?

If not:

2. Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2)
and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State where the holder of the foreign
EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first
Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn by the
administrative authority where the law of the first Member
State considers that in the case of administrative measures
for the withdrawal or cancellation of a driving licence there
is no ban on its reissue and where entitlement to the reissue
of a driving licence does not arise until
the person
concerned has provided evidence of aptitude to drive as a
material prerequisite for the reissue of the driving licence in
the form of a medical/psychological report regulated in
more detail under national law, on an order by the adminis-
trative authority?

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/19

If not:

3. Are the combined provisions of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2)
and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State within its territory may refuse
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State where the holder of the foreign
EU driving licence has previously, in the territory of the first
Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or
cancelled for some reason by the administrative authorities
and where it is to be concluded on the basis of objective
evidence (non-residence in the Member State issuing the
driving licence or the failure of an application for the
national driving licence to be restored) that the only reason
for acquiring the foreign EU driving licence was to circum-
vent the strict substantive requirements of national proce-
dure for the restoration of a driving licence, particularly the
need for a medical/psychological report?

(1) OJ L 237, p.1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
im Land Niederösterreich (Austria)
Verwaltungssenat

lodged on 10 August 2006 — Gottfried Heinrich

(Case C-345/06)

(2006/C 281/30)

2. Do regulations or parts thereof have binding force if,
contrary to the requirement of Article 254(2) EC, they are
not published in the Official
the European
Union?

Journal of

(1) OJ L 145, p. 43.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale di Brescia (Italy) lodged on 17
August 2006 — ASM Brescia S.p.A. v Comune di Rodengo
Saiano

(Case C-347/06)

(2006/C 281/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale di Brescia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ASM Brescia S.p.A.

Defendant: Comune di Rodengo Saiano

Language of the case: German

Questions referred

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gottfried Heinrich

Questions referred

1. Do documents within the meaning of Article 2(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
and Commission docu-
European Parliament, Council
ments (1) include acts which are required to be published in
the Official
Journal of the European Union pursuant to
Article 254 EC?

(1) Is an automatic and generalised extension till 31 December
2007 of current concessions for the distribution of natural
gas, originally granted without any previous tender proce-
dure, contrary to Articles 43, 49 and 86(1) of the Treaty,
and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination
and transparency?

(2) Are subsequent automatic extensions till 31 December
2009 of current concessions for the distribution of natural
gas, originally granted without any previous tender proce-
dure, contrary to Articles 43, 49 and 86(1) of the Treaty,
and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination
and transparency in the following cases:

(a) when the holder of the concession has carried out a
merger enabling it to serve a number of customers
twice as great as the larger of the companies was able
to;

(b) when the holder of the concession has acquired more
than 100 000 final users, or it supplies more than 100
million cubic metres of gas a year or its field of opera-
tions is at least as great as the whole territory of the
province;

(c) when at least 40 % of the concession-holder's share
capital has been transferred to private shareholders?