Case C-411/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 7 September 2007 — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, electrical equipment, interpretation of the law, machinery

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/15

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
that purpose by the
bodies
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?

and computer equipment, consumer electronics and indus-
trial machines, be regarded as an electrical machine or appa-
ratus within the meaning of heading 8543 of the CN?

including photovoltaic

2. If it is a part of a machine, is ‘photosensitive semiconductor
device,
cells, whether or not
assembled in modules or made up into panels’ referred to in
heading 8541 of the CN to be interpreted as including an
optical-electrical circuit as described above, or is such a
product to be regarded as an electronic integrated circuit
within the meaning of heading 8542 of the CN owing to the
presence of the amplifying circuit?

a

for

ruling

Reference
from the
preliminary
Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany)
lodged on 10 September 2007 — Kathrin Haase, Adolf
Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon, Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem,
Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André Richter, Andreas
Schneider v Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO
Maritime Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden lodged on 7 September 2007 — X B.V. v
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-411/07)

(2007/C 283/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

(Case C-413/07)

(2007/C 283/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kathrin Haase, Adolf Oberdorfer, Doreen Kielon,
Peter Schulze, Peter Kliem, Dietmar Bössow, Helge Riedel, André
Richter, Andreas Schneider

Defendants: Superfast Ferries SA, Superfast OKTO Maritime
Company, Baltic SF VIII LTD.

Questions referred

1. Must an optical-electrical circuit contained in a plastic case
which, together with a light emitting diode (‘LED’), a plastic
film and a photodetector, contains an amplifying circuit and
inter alia, communication
is intended for incorporation in,

1. Must Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be
interpreted as meaning that, for employees engaged to work
on a particular ship and exclusively working on that particu-
lar ship, the ship itself is to be considered as the place where
the employee habitually carries out his work?