Case C-139/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku
Date: 2008-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, border control, foreign national, interpretation of the law, residence permit, transit

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/9

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, what
criteria may the national courts take into account in the
context of that review,
in particular in the case that the
contractual term does not grant jurisdiction to the judicial
body corresponding to the registered office of the service
provider, but to a different judicial body which is located
close to that registered office?

3. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Articl 23 of the Protocol
on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty
on European Union, the Treaty establishing the European
Community and the Treaty establishing the European
Atomic Energy Community, is the possibility precluded for
the national courts to inform the Ministry of Justice of their
own Member State that a reference for a preliminary ruling
has been made at the same time as making that reference?

(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Hochtief
AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH v Közbeszerzések Tanácsa
Közbeszerzési Döntőbizottság

(Case C-138/08)

(2008/C 183/16)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Ítélőtábla (Hungary)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hochtief AG, Linde-Kca-Dresden GmbH

Defendant: Közbeszerzések Tanácsa Közbeszerzési Döntőbi-
zottság

Intervener: Budapest Főváros Önkormányzata

time-limit granted to Member States for implementing that
directive had not yet expired, so that the directive had not
been incorporated into national law?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, this
court further asks whether, in the case of negotiated proce-
dures with publication of a contract notice, — having regard
that Article 44(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC
to the fact
provides that
the number of candidates
invited shall be sufficient to ensure genuine competition’ —
the limitation of the number of suitable candidates should be
interpreted as meaning that in the second stage — that of
invariably be a
awarding the contract — there must
minimum number of candidates (three)?

‘[i]n any event

3. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, this
court further asks the Court of Justice whether the require-
ment that ‘there be a sufficient number of suitable candi-
dates’, under Article 22(3) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC
concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts (‘Directive 93/37’), should be inter-
preted as meaning that where the minimum number of
suitable candidates invited to take part is not reached (three),
the procedure cannot continue to the stage of invitation to
tender?

4. If the Court of Justice replies to the third question in the
negative, this court further asks whether the second para-
graph of Article 22(2) of Directive 93/37 — in the rules on
restricted procedures, according to which ‘[i]n any event, the
number of candidates invited to tender shall be sufficient to
ensure genuine competition’ — is applicable to two-stage
negotiated procedures, governed by Article 22(3)?

(1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54.
(2) OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 —
Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku

(Case C-139/08)

(2008/C 183/17)

Language of the case: German

Questions referred

1. Is the procedure laid down in Article 44(3) of Directive
2004/18/EC, which replaced Article 22 of Council Directive
93/37/EEC (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts, applicable where the
procurement procedure was initiated at a time when Direc-
tive 2004/18/EC (2) had already entered into force, but the

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe

C 183/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Question referred

Applicants:

1. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Karlsruhe

2. Staatsanwaltschaft Konstanz

Defendant: Rafet Kqiku

Questions referred

the European Parliament and of

the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision
Are
No 896/2006/EC of
the
Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for
the control of persons at the external borders based on the
unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence
permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose
of transit through their territory (1) to be interpreted as meaning
that the residence permits issued by the Swiss Confederation
and Liechtenstein listed in the Annex acquire, by virtue of the
unilateral recognition by the Member States fully implementing
the Schengen acquis of those residence permits as equivalent to
their uniform or national visas, directly the effect of a residence
document allowing transit through the common area;

Or

the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision
are
No 896/2006/EC to be interpreted as meaning that
third-
country nationals holding one of the residence permits issued
by the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein listed in the
Annex unilaterally recognised by the Member States fully imple-
menting the Schengen acquis are exempt, for the purpose of
transit through the common area, from the requirement to be
in possession of a visa under Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 539/2001?

(1) OJ 2006 L 167, p. 8.

Is the imposition of German real property transfer tax on future
building work as a result of its inclusion in the taxable amount
for real property transfer tax on the purchase of a plot of land
not yet built on (so-called single supply consisting of building
land) contrary to the prohibition on
work and purchase of
the Directive on the
multiple taxation in Article 401 of
common system of value added tax (1) (formerly Article 33(1)
of the Sixth Directive) (2) where the building work subject to
real property transfer tax is also subject to German turnover tax
as an independent supply?

(1) OJ L 347, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
beroep te Antwerp (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2008 —
Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely v
Belgische Staat

(Case C-161/08)

(2008/C 183/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nieder-
sächsischen Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 April
2008 — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Appellant: Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely

(Case C-156/08)

(2008/C 183/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monika Vollkommer

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

Questions referred

(1) Must Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1593/91 (1) of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with
Article 11(1) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on
the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR
Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that
the period laid down in Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention
applies only for the benefit of the guaranteeing organisation,
but not for that of the carnet holder, and that exceeding the
period of one year from the date of acceptance of the TIR
carnet in respect of the carnet holder affects entitlement to
recover the customs debt or the excise duties and special
excise duties and the liability for payment, and that
exceeding the period of one year prejudices the right of the
competent customs authorities to proceed to recovery of
that debt?