Case C-451/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fishing rights, interpretation of the law, property leasing, real property, stagnant water, tax exemption

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

C 326/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Questions referred

Is Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (as last amended by
Council Directive 2006/69/EC of 24 July 2006 (2)), hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Sixth Directive’, to be interpreted as meaning
that the grant of the entitlement to fish, for consideration, in
the form of a lease concluded for a period of 10 years

1. by the owner of the property on which the body of water in

respect of which the entitlement was granted is located,

2. by the holder of fishing rights in respect of a body of water

located on public land

constitutes ‘the leasing or letting of immovable property’?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 221, p. 9.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court)
(United Kingdom) made on 9
November 2006 — The Queen on the application of
Interested Party:
Synthon BV v Licensing Authority,

Smithkline Beecham plc

(Case C-452/06)

(2006/C 326/84)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Divi-
sion (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Synthon BV

Defendant: Licensing Authority

Interested Party: Smithkline Beecham plc

Questions referred

1. Where:

— a Member State (‘the concerned Member State’) receives
to Article 28 of Directive
an application pursuant
the
2001/83/EC of
Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code

the European Parliament and of

for mutual

relating to medicinal products for human use (1)
(‘the
Directive’)
in the concerned
Member State of a marketing authorisation of a medicinal
product (‘the Product’) granted by another Member State
(‘the reference Member State’);

recognition,

— such marketing authorisation was granted by the refer-
ence Member State pursuant to the abridged application
procedure in Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of the Directive on the
grounds that the Product is essentially similar to another
medicinal product which has already been authorised
within the EU for the requisite period (‘the Reference
Product’);

— the concerned Member State operates a procedure for
validation of the application during which it checks that
the application contains the particulars and documents
required by Articles 8, 10(1)(a)(iii) and 28 of the Direc-
tive, including that the particulars provided are compa-
tible with the legal basis upon which the application is
submitted;

(a) is it compatible with the Directive and in particular
Article 28 for the concerned Member State to check
that the Product is essentially similar to the Reference
Product (without carrying out any substantive assess-
ment), to refuse to accept and review the application
and not proceed to recognise the marketing authori-
sation granted by the reference Member State on the
grounds that in its opinion the Product is not essen-
tially similar to the Reference Product? or

(b) is the concerned Member State obliged to recognise
the marketing authorisation granted by the reference
Member State within 90 days of receipt of the appli-
cation and the assessment report pursuant to Article
28(4) of the Directive unless the concerned Member
State invokes the procedure set out in Articles 29 to
34 of the Directive (which is applicable where there
are grounds for supposing that the marketing author-
isation of the Product may present a risk to public
health within the meaning of Article 29 of the Direc-
tive).

is not essentially similar

2. If the answer to question 1(a) is no and the answer to ques-
tion 1(b) is yes, where the concerned Member State rejects
the application at the validation stage on the grounds that
the Product
to the Reference
Product, and thereby fails to recognise the marketing authori-
sation granted by the reference Member State or to invoke
the procedure set out in Articles 29 to 34 of the Directive,
does the failure by the concerned Member State to recognise
the marketing authorisation granted by the
reference
Member State in the circumstances referred to above amount
to a sufficiently serious breach of Community law within the
meaning of the second condition in the judgment in Joined
Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factor-
tame. Alternatively, what factors ought the national court to
take into consideration when it comes to determine whether
such failure amounts to a sufficiently serious breach?