Case C-347/06: 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
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gas supply, interpretation of the law, natural gas, service concession

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Member State, had his driving licence withdrawn or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?

C 281/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

(3) Is the extension of current concessions for the distribution
of natural gas, both in the case described in the first ques-
tion and in the cases described in the second, contrary to
tenth and eighteenth recitals in the
the fourth, eighth,
preamble to Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of 26 June 2003, and
to Article 23(1) thereof, to Article 10 of the Treaty and to
the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, having
particular regard to:

(a) the fact that the States are obliged to attain the objec-
tive of liberalising the market in natural gas before the
dead-line of 1 July 2007;

(b) the fact that the States are prohibited from adopting or
maintaining in force domestic legislation incompatible
with the liberalisation of the market in natural gas;

(c) the fact that the States are obliged to set a reasonable
term for the duration of the transitional period and
subject it to objective requirements?

(1) OJ L 176, p. 57.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006
— Murat Polat v Stadt Rüsselsheim

(Case C-349/06)

(2006/C 281/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Murat Polat

Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim

Questions referred

No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council (Decision
No 1/80) to free access to any paid employment — except
in cases under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where he
leaves the host Member State for a significant period of time
without legitimate reason — even in the case where he has
attained the age of 21 and no longer lives with his parents
or is maintained by them?

In the event that the answer to Question 1 is negative:

2. Does a Turkish national, whose legal status under the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
No 1/80 has been terminated on the basis of the conditions
set out in Question 1, reacquire that legal status if, after
reaching the age of 21, he returns to live in his parents'
is
household for a period of more than three years,
permitted to live there free of charge and is given lodging,
and the mother has minimal employment (as a cleaning
lady generally for 30 to 70 hours per month and at times
20 hours per month) during that period?

In the event that the answer to Question 2 is affirmative:

3. Does the position in law change if the family member has a
number of courses of residential treatments (30.8.2001 to
20.6.2002, 2.10.2003 to 8.1.2004) during the period of
residence with the worker?

4. Does the position in law change if the Turkish national has
regular personal income of at least EUR 400 to EUR 1 400
per month during the period of residence with the worker?

In the event that the continuance of a legal status under the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No
1/80 is to be assumed (if the answer to Question 1 is affirma-
tive or the answer to Question 2 is affirmative and the answers
to Questions 3 and 4 are negative):

5. May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
No 1/80 and who has lived in the federal territory since
1972, rely on the special protection against expulsion under
Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004
(OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77; corrigendum at OJ 2004 L 229, p.
35)?

6. Does the position in law change if the Turkish national,
within the ten years prior to the issue of the expulsion
order, resided in Turkey from 1 February 1996 to 28
November 1997 for the purpose of performing his military
service?

1. Is it compatible with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol
to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an
Association between the European Economic Community
and Turkey (1) for the transitional phase if a Turkish national
who, as a child, joined his parents who were employed as
workers in the Federal Republic of Germany, does not lose
his right of residence derived from the right under the
second [indent] of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision

In the event that the answer to Question 5 is negative or the
answer to Question 6 is affirmative:

7. May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the
second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision
No 1/80 and who has lived in the federal territory since
1972, rely on the special protection against expulsion under
Article 28(2) of Directive 2004/38?