Case C-412/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2006 — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, consumer protection, interpretation of the law

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/7

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

expires one month after both parties have performed their
obligations under the agreement in full?

is it

a) In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
where in a Member State both public and private milk-
quota sales points transfer delivery reference quantities
for consideration,
the case that when assessing
whether the treatment of a Milchquoten-Verkaufsstelle of a
body governed by public law as a non-taxable person
would lead to ‘significant distortions of competition’
within the meaning of
the second subparagraph of
Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive the relevant geographic
market is the transfer area defined by the Member State?

b) When assessing whether the treatment of a public Milch-
quoten-Verkaufsstelle as a non-taxable person would lead
to such ‘significant distortions of competition’ is only the
normal case of transfers independently of the land (by a
Verkaufsstelle) to be taken into consideration, or are other
types of transfers independently of the land (by farmers
as taxable persons) also to be included even though they
are only exceptional cases?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

In the event
referred in the negative:

that

the Court answers the first question

2. Should Directive 85/577/EEC be interpreted as meaning
that the right of renunciation cannot be forfeited by the
the
consumer — in particular after the completion of
contract — if he has not been given notice in accordance
with the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Directive?

(1) OJ L 372, p. 31.

Appeal brought on 12 October 2006 by the Italian
Republic against the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 13 July 2006 in Case
T-225/04 Italian Republic v Commission of the European
Communities

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2006 —
Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG

(Case C-412/06)

(2006/C 310/12)

Parties

(Case C-417/06 P)

(2006/C 310/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: German

Italian Republic (represented by:
Appellant:
Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avvocato dello Stato)

I.M. Braguglia,

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG

Question referred

1. May the first paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) of
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 (1) be
interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not
precluded from placing a time-limit on the right of cancella-
tion given by Article 5 of
the Directive, despite the
consumer having been given defective notice, so that it

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 13 July 2006 in Case T-225/04 dismissing the
action brought by the Italian Republic against the Commis-
sion for annulment of Commission Decision No C (2003)
3971 final of 26 November 2003 establishing indicative
allocations between the Member States of the commitment
appropriations under Community initiatives for the period
1994-1999;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance in full
pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities, as
amended, and annul the Commission Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
and the costs in the proceedings before the Court of First
Instance.