Case C-449/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indépendants
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, family benefit, interpretation of the law, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU), social security

C 326/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2006 —
cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik
Firma

Applicants: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen
Működő Részvénytársaság,
Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai
Részvénytársaság

Deutschland

(Case C-448/06)

(2006/C 326/80)

Defendants: Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testü-
lete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

Language of the case: German

Questions referred

1. Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex
X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the
Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of
Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of
Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded (‘the Act of Accession’) (1), which is applic-
able pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and
which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of
the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31
December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 %
of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local govern-
ment for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6
and 7 of the Helyi Adókról Szóló 1990. Évi C. Törvény (Act
C of 1990 on local taxes), be interpreted as meaning that it
concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to
maintain the business tax until that time?

2. In the light thereof, must Article 33 of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC (‘the Sixth Directive’) (2) be interpreted as
meaning that thereunder a Member State may not maintain
or introduce a tax on profit-making business activities the
basis is of assessment of which is made up of net receipts,
after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold
and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw
materials?

first and second-level

3. Depending on the answer given to the two questions above,
and having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities, must the present practice of
Hungary's
tax authorities, which
consists in avoiding any examination of the compatibility
with Community law of the local business tax, by suggesting
to taxpayers that they amend their tax returns by means of
self-revision, thus making difficult or impossible the practical
application of Community law and requiring taxpayers to
initiate tax proceedings with uncertain consequences, be
interpreted as impeding the exercise of their rights and there-
fore as meaning that Hungary is failing to comply with
Article 10 of the EC Treaty?

(1) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
(2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1873/2003 of 24 October
2003 (1) amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No
2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establish-
ment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal
products in foodstuffs of animal origin (2) void on account of a
breach of higher-ranking Community law (Articles 1(1) and 3 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 in conjunction with
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April
1996 (3)), in so far as application of an injection solution as a
pharmaceutical form is excluded by virtue of the note marked
(*) against the listing of progesterone in Annex II to Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90?

(1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 9.
(2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1996 L 125, p. 3.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2006
— Sophiane Gysen v Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances
sociales pour indépendants

(Case C-449/06)

(2006/C 326/81)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/39

Parties to the main proceedings

Question referred

Applicant: Sophiane Gysen

Defendant: Groupe S — Caisse d'Assurances sociales pour indé-
pendants

Question referred

May, or must, Article 67(1) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
[No 259/68] of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down
the Staff Regulations of Officials of
the European Commu-
nities (1) and Annex VII
thereto, entitled ‘Remuneration …’,
Section 1: Family allowances, which comprise

(a) household allowance,

(b) dependent child allowance,

(c) education allowance,

be regarded as constituting what the national rules in question
describe as an ‘… international social security convention in
force in Belgium’?

(1) JO L 56, p. 1.

Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21
December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the application of
review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts (1), read with Article 15(2) of Council Directive
93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the
award of public supply contracts (2), and Article 6 of Directive
2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the
award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and
public service contracts (3), be interpreted as meaning that the
authority responsible for the appeal procedures provided for in
that article must ensure confidentiality and observance of the
business secrets contained in the files communicated to it by the
parties to the case including the awarding authority, whilst at
the same time being entitled to apprise itself of such informa-
tion and take it into consideration?

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.
(2) OJ L 199, 09.08.1993, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 134, 30.04.2004, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien (Austria)
lodged on 6
November 2006 — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt
Waldviertel

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Varec SA v État
belge

(Case C-450/06)

(2006/C 326/82)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-451/06)

(2006/C 326/83)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Conseil d'État (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Varec SA

Defendant: État belge

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gabriele Walderdorff

Defendant: Finanzamt Waldviertel