Case C-316/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen lodged on 9 July 2007 — Markus Stoß v Wetteraukreis
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State monopoly, game of chance, interpretation of the law, service concession

C 269/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Codirex Expeditie
BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
lodged on 9 July 2007 — A-Punkt
Klagenfurt (Austria),

Schmuckhandels GmbH v Claudia Schmidt

(Case C-400/06) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature —
Tariff classification — Subheading 0202 30 50 — Cuts of
frozen boned meat from a part of the forequarter of bovine
animals)

(2007/C 269/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Codirex Expeditie BV

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlandem — Interpre-
tation of Additional Note 1.A.(h)(11) to Chapter 2 of Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on
the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff (OJ 1999 L 278, p. 1) — Frozen boned meat
derived from a part of the forequarter

Operative part of the judgment

1. Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 2204/1999 of 12 October 1999, must be interpreted as
meaning that pieces of frozen boned meat from the forequarter part
of the bovine animal come under subheading 0202 30 50 of the
Combined Nomenclature.

2. Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, as amended by Regulation
No 2204/1999, must be interpreted as meaning that pieces of
frozen boned meat from the forequarter of the bovine animal do
not have to satisfy any other conditions, and in particular, do not
have to come from the same animal, in order to be classified under
subheading 0202 30 50.

(1) JO C 310, 16.12.2006.

(Case C-315/07)

(2007/C 269/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH

Defendant: Claudia Schmidt

Questions referred

1. Does a rule of a Member State which prohibits the sale of
silver jewellery by way of calling on private individuals for
the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for, items of
silver jewellery with a maximum individual value of EUR 40
constitute a restriction on the free movement of goods
within the meaning of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, if market
access for Community goods is possible only by way of an
additional burden on those goods in the form of the costs
involved in changing marketing structures and making
changes to, and extending, product ranges?

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

2. Does a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28 EC and
30 EC, prohibits the sale of items of silver jewellery with a
maximum individual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on
private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting
orders for, such silver jewellery constitute a justifiable and
proportionate measure which precludes the right of an indi-
vidual to sell items of silver jewellery with a maximum indi-
vidual value of EUR 40 by way of calling on private indivi-
duals for the purposes of selling, and collecting orders for,
silver jewellery?

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Verwaltungsgericht Giessen lodged on 9 July 2007 —
Markus Stoß v Wetteraukreis

ruling

a

(Case C-316/07)

(2007/C 269/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Giessen

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/17

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Markus Stoß

Defendant: Wetteraukreis

Questions referred

such as

1. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national monopoly on certain gaming,
sports
betting, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to
limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, in
particular because the operators which have been granted a
licence within that Member State encourage participation in
other gaming — such as State-run lotteries and casino games
— and, moreover, other games with the same or a higher
suspected potential danger of addiction — such as betting on
certain sporting events (e.g. horse racing) and slot machines
— may be provided by private service providers?

specifically designated for

2. Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by State
bodies
that purpose by the
Member States, which are not restricted to the particular
national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and
third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers
to conclude contracts also in other Member States without
any additional national authorisations being required?

(Article 49 EC et seq.) preclude national legislation in force on
31 December 2003 under which the grant to a trader of a tax
advantage (investment growth premium) for the acquisition of
unused tangible assets is conditional also upon those assets
being used exclusively in a domestic place of business, whereas
that tax advantage (investment growth premium) is not available
for the acquisition of unused tangible assets which are used in a
foreign place of business, including, therefore, in a place of busi-
ness that is located elsewhere in the European Union?

a

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 July 2007
— Josef Holzinger v Bundesministerium für Bildung,
Wissenschaft und Kultur

ruling

(Case C-332/07)

(2007/C 269/34)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), lodged on 16 July
2007 — Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v
Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Josef Holzinger

(Case C-330/07)

(2007/C 269/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH

Respondent: Finanzamt Amstetten Melk Scheibbs

Defendant: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und
Kultur

Questions referred

1. Is Article 9(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the
European Community and its Member States, of the one
part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free
movement of persons (1) directly effective?

2. Is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
employment completed in Switzerland before the entry into
force of the Agreement (1 June 2002) must be taken into
account for the purposes of advancement in comparable
employment subsequently pursued in a Member State of the
European Community, irrespective of when those periods of
employment were completed?

Question referred

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

Do the provisions relating to the freedom of establishment
(Article 43 EC et seq.) and/or the freedom to provide services