Case C-524/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2006 — Heinz Huber v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data processing, disclosure of information, discrimination on the basis of nationality, foreign national, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, personal data, residence permit

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/19

Erroneous application of Article 81(3) EC

According to the contested judgment the Commission failed in
its assessment of the causal link between parallel trade and inno-
vation and between article 4 of the General Sales Conditions
and innovation. The CFI also held that
the Commission's
conclusions regarding the effect of the currency fluctuations on
the parallel trade between Spain and the UK were erroneous.
The applicant submits that the Commission's appraisal regarding
these points was entirely correct and that there was no manifest
error of assessment and that the CFI therefore wrongly inter-
preted article 81(3) EC.

Finally the applicant submits that the CFI reversed the burden of
proof regarding article 81(3) EC and did not correctly analyse
the Commission's evaluation of the second, third and fourth
conditions of that article. The applicant maintains that the four
conditions for granting an exemption under article 81(3) are
cumulative and therefore the non-fulfilment of only one of
these conditions is sufficient grounds for the Commission to
reject the application for exemption. As a consequence the CFI
cannot annul a negative decision if it has not previously comple-
tely assessed the Commission's analysis of the four conditions
contained in article 81(3) and concluded that the Commission
committed manifest errors of assessment as regards those condi-
tions.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords
(United Kingdom) made on 20 December 2006 — Stringer
and others v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

to take paid
future period as paid annual
annual leave, in either case during a period that would other-
wise be sick leave?

leave and (ii)

2. If a Member State exercises its discretion to replace the
minimum period of paid annual leave with an allowance in
lieu on termination of employment under Article 7(2) of
Directive 2003/88/EEC, in circumstances in which a worker
has been absent on sick leave for all or part of the leave year
in which the employment relationship is terminated, does
Article 7(2)
impose any requirements or lay down any
criteria as to whether the allowance is to be paid or how it is
to be calculated?

(1) OJ L 299, p. 9.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany)
lodged on 28 December 2006 — Heinz Huber v Federal
Republic of Germany

(Case C-524/06)

(2007/C 56/34)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-520/06)

(2007/C 56/33)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Referring court

House of Lords

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stringer and others

Defendant: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred

1. Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) mean that a
worker on indefinite sick leave is entitled (i) to designate a

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Heinz Huber

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

Is the general processing of personal data of foreign citizens of
the Union in a central register of foreign nationals compatible
with

(a) the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality
against citizens of the Union who exercise their right to
move and reside freely within the territory of the Member
States (first paragraph of Article 12 EC in conjunction with
Articles 17 EC and 18(1) EC),

C 56/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

(b) the prohibition of restrictions on the freedom of establish-
ment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of
another Member State (first paragraph of Article 43 EC),

(c) the requirement of necessity under Article 7(e) of Directive
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data (1)?

(1) OJ L 281, 1995, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden lodged on 27 December 2006 — R.H.H.
Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-527/06)

(2007/C 56/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 December 2006 — Emm.
G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai
Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexan-
droupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini Georgoula, Dim. Vasios,
N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi Etairia Meleton,
Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan. Kirio-
poulou & Sinergates (‘Filon’) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris

(Case C-532/06)

(2007/C 56/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia
Meleton kai Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini
Georgoula, Dim. Vasios, N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi
Etairia Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan.
Kiriopoulou & Sinergates (‘Filon’) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris

Question referred

If the tender notice for the award of a contract for services
makes provision only for the order of priority of the award
criteria, without stipulating the weighting factors for each
criterion, does Article 36 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) relating to
the coordination of the procedures for the award of public
service contracts allow criteria to be weighted by the evaluation
committee at a later date and, if so, under what conditions?

Appellant: R.H.H. Renneberg

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Articles 39 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as precluding,
either individually or jointly, a situation in which a taxpayer
in his country of residence, has (on balance) negative
who,
income from a dwelling owned and occupied by him and
obtains all of his positive income, specifically work-related
income, in a Member State other than that in which he resides
is not permitted by that other Member State (the State of
employment) to deduct the negative income from his taxed
work-related income, even though the State of employment
does allow its own residents to make such a deduction?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(United Kingdom) made on 28 December 2006 — 02 Hold-
ings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK
Limited

(Case C-533/06)

(2007/C 56/37)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal