Case C-374/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs procedure suspending duties, excise duty, interpretation of the law, redemption, tobacco

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 —
BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt
Bielefeld

Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim

Questions referred

(Case C-374/06)

(2006/C 326/49)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Question referred

Should Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty
such
and on the holding, movement and monitoring of
products be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which
has collected excise duty for manufactured tobacco by means of
issuing tax markings is obliged to reimburse the recipient of the
tax markings for
them if manufactured
tobacco furnished with those tax markings in another Member
State departs from the duty suspension arrangement irregularly
with the consequence that
the latter Member State collects
excise duty for the manufactured tobacco from the trader estab-
lished there who dispatched the manufactured tobacco under
intra-community duty-suspension arrangements ?

the sum paid for

(1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2006 —
Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

(Case C-409/06)

(2006/C 326/50)

1. Are Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC to be interpreted as
meaning that national rules governing a State monopoly on
sports betting, which contain impermissible restrictions on
the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
services enshrined in Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, inas-
much as they do not serve to limit betting activities in a
consistent and systematic manner within the terms of the
Court's case-law (judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and
Others [2003] ECR-13031), may still continue to apply for a
transitional period on an exceptional basis, notwithstanding
the primacy of directly applicable Community law?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: what
conditions need to be met for the purpose of derogating
from that primacy and how is the transitional period to be
determined?

Appeal brought on 10 October 2006 by Bertelsmann AG,
Sony Corporation of America against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 13
July 2006 in Case T-464/04: Independent Music Publishers
and Labels Association (Impala, international association) v
Commission of the European Communities.

(Case C-413/06 P)

(2006/C 326/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Bertelsmann AG, Sony Corporation of America
J. Boyce, Solicitors, N. Levy,
(represented by: P. Chappatte,
Barrister, R. Snelders, avocat, T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Independent Music Publishers and Labels Associa-
tion (Impala, association internationale), Sony BMG Music Enter-
tainment BV

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July

2006 in Case T-464/04;

— reject Impala's application for annulment of the Commis-
sion's decision or, alternatively, refer the case back for recon-
sideration to the Court of First Instance; and

Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

— order Impala to pay the costs of the present proceedings.