Case C-404/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg
Date: 2008-09-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, competition law, interpretation of the law, legal expenses, public authorities, tax exemption

C 327/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.12.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Naumburg (Germany)
lodged on 18 September
2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der
Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District
Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt
attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gericht Naumburg (Germany)
lodged on 18 September
2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der
Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District
Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt
attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

(Case C-404/08)

(2008/C 327/16)

(Case C-409/08)

(2008/C 327/17)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Naumburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Naumburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
Investitionsbank
Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

Sachsen-Anhalt– Anstalt

der

Defendant: District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land
Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Applicant:
Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der

Defendant: District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land
Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a)
and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the
exemption from court costs and fees granted by the Land of
to the Investment Bank established by it
Saxony-Anhalt
under Paragraph 6(1) of
the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz
(Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003
(Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt
(GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid?

1. Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a)
and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the
exemption from court costs (fees and expenses) granted by
the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank estab-
lished by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-
Begleitgesetz
of
18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes
Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid
as infringing the prohibition of measures that restrict compe-
tition?

Bank Ancillary

(Investment

Law)

2. If the question under 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should
the Community-law rules on competition under the first
sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that
the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys
exemption from court costs and fees only when it performs
official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regu-
lation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment
Bank of Saxony-Anhalt
(GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as
amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006
(GVBl. LSA, p. 534)?

the

2. If the question in 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the
Community-law rules on competition under
first
sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that
the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys
exemption from court cost and fees only when it performs
official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regu-
lation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment
Bank of Saxony-Anhalt
(GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as
amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006
(GVBl. LSA, p. 534)?