Case C-66/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 — Extradition proceedings against Szymon Kozlowski
Date: 2008-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, extradition, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings

C 107/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België lodged on 18 February 2008 — UDV
North America Inc v Brandtraders NV

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-62/08)

(2008/C 107/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Question referred

Is additional note 5(b) to Chapter 20 of the Combined Nomen-
clature in the version of Regulations (EC) Nos 2388/2000 (1)
and 2031/2001 (2) valid?

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: UDV North America Inc

Respondent: Brandtraders NV

Questions referred

(1) For there to be use of the sign within the meaning of
Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) of
20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark,
is it
necessary that a third party, within the meaning of
Article 9(1)(a) of the Regulation:

(a) uses the sign on his own behalf?

(b) uses the sign as an interested party in relation to trade
in goods in which he is himself a contractual party?

(2) Can a trade intermediary who acts in his own name,
but not on his own behalf, be regarded as a third
party who uses the sign within the meaning of Article 9(1)
(a) and (2)(d)?

(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
lodged on 18 February 2008 —
Düsseldorf (Germany)

Europol Frost-Food GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

(Case C-65/08)

(2008/C 107/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ 2000 L 264, p. 1, and OJ 2000 L 276, p. 92).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesger-
icht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 18 February 2008 —
Extradition proceedings against Szymon Kozlowski

(Case C-66/08)

(2008/C 107/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Party to the main proceedings

Szymon Kozlowski

Questions referred

1. Do the following facts preclude the assumption that a person
is a ‘resident’ of or is ‘staying’ in a Member State in the sense
of Article
Framework Decision
Council
2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest
warrant and the surrender procedures between Member
States (1):

4(6)

of

(a) his stay in the Member State concerned has not been

uninterrupted;

(b) his stay there does not comply with the law on resi-

dence;

(c) he commits crimes there systematically for financial gain;

and/or

Applicant: Europol Frost-Food GmbH

(d) he is in custody serving a criminal sentence there?

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/19

2. Is transposition of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Deci-
sion 2002/584/JHA in such a way that the extradition of a
State's own nationals against their will for the purpose of
execution of sentence is always impermissible, whereas extra-
dition of nationals of other Member States against their will
can be authorised at the discretion of the authorities, compa-
tible with Union law,
in particular with the principles of
non-discrimination and Union citizenship under Article 6(1)
of the Treaty on European Union (EU) in conjunction with
Articles 12 and 17 et seq. of the EC Treaty (EC) and, if so, are
those principles at least to be taken into account in the exer-
cise of that discretion?

2. Is Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) to
be interpreted as meaning that the inheritance tax which
another European Union Member State levies in respect of
the
the acquisition, by an heir resident
capital claims of a testator last resident in Germany against
credit institutions in that other Member State must be cred-
ited against German inheritance tax?

in Germany, of

3. In deciding which of the States involved has to avoid double
taxation is the justification for
the different connecting
factors in the national tax law systems relevant and, if so, is
the connection to the residence of the creditor more justified
than the connection to the registered office of the debtor?

(1) OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
lodged on 20 February 2008 —
nanzhof

(Germany)
Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Napoli, Sezione Lavoro (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2008
— Raffaello Visciano v I.N.P.S.

(Case C-67/08)

(2008/C 107/29)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-69/08)

(2008/C 107/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarete Block

Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

Questions referred

1. Do the provisions of Article 73d(1)(a) and (3) of the EC
Treaty (now Article 58(1)(a) and (3) EC) allow the crediting
of Spanish inheritance tax against German inheritance tax to
be precluded under Paragraph 21(1) and (2)(1) of
the
Erbschaftsteuer- und Schenkungsteuergesetz (Law on inheri-
tance and gift tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 121 of the
Bewertungsgesetz (Valuation Law) (category restriction) even
in the case of deaths which occurred in 1999?

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaello Visciano

Defendant: I.N.P.S.

Questions referred

1. Do Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987 (1) of 20 October
1980 — where they provide for the payment of workers'
outstanding claims relating to pay — allow such claims,
when they come to be enforced against the guarantee institu-
tion, to be deprived of their initial nature as claims relating
to pay and to be reclassified as social security claims merely
because the payment of them has been entrusted by the
Member State to a social security institution, and therefore
allow the term ‘pay’ to be replaced in national law by the
term ‘social security benefit’?