Case C-448/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2006 — Firma cp-Pharma Handels GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: hormone, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, material of animal origin, veterinary drug, veterinary legislation

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