Case C-55/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2007 — Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and the Autonomous Province of Bolzano
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, fine, interpretation of the law, labour inspectorate, part-time employment, work contract

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/17

Questions referred

1. Can Articles 82 and 86 of the EC Treaty be interpreted so as
also to include within their scope the activity of a legal
person which has the status of national representative of the
Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (the International
Motorcycling Federation) and engages in economic activity as
described above by entering into sponsorship, advertising
and insurance contracts, in the context of the organisation of
motor sport events by it?

2. Should the answer be in the affirmative, is Article 49 of Law
2696/1999, which,
in relation to issue by the competent
national public authority (in the present case, the Ministry
for Public Order) of permission to organise a motor-vehicle
competition, gives the foregoing legal person the power to
the
provide a concurring opinion as to the holding of
competition without
to
that power being made subject
restrictions, obligations and review, compatible with those
provisions of the Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdom-
stolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Kanal 5
Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag v Föreningen Svenska Tonsät-
tares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)

(Case C-52/07)

(2007/C 95/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Marknadsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kanal 5 Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag

nels' revenue from such television broadcasts directed at the
general public?

B. Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a practice
constitutes abuse of a dominant position where a copyright
management organisation which has a de facto monopoly
position in a Member State applies to or imposes in respect
of commercial television channels a remuneration model for
the right to make available music in television broadcasts
directed at the general public which involves the remunera-
tion being calculated as a proportion of the television chan-
nels' revenue from such television broadcasts directed at the
general public, where there is no clear link between the
revenue and what the copyright management organisation
makes available, that is, authorisation to perform copyright-
protected music, as is often the case with, for example, news
and sports broadcasts and where revenue increases as a
result of development of programme charts, investments in
technology and customised solutions?

C. Is the answer to Question A or B affected by the fact that it
to identify and quantify both the music

is possible
performed and viewing?

D. Is the answer to Question A or B affected by the fact that
the remuneration model (revenue model) is not applied in a
similar manner in respect of a public service company?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Bolzano (Italy)
lodged on 1 February 2007 — Othmar
Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate of the
Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employment
protection office) and the Autonomous Province of
Bolzano

(Case C-55/07)

(2007/C 95/29)

Language of the case: German

Defendant:
Musikbyrå (STIM)

Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares

Internationella

Referring court

Landesgericht Bolzano

Questions referred

A. Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a practice
constitutes abuse of a dominant position where a copyright
management organisation which has a de facto monopoly
position in a Member State applies to or imposes in respect
of commercial television channels a remuneration model for
the right to make available music in television broadcasts
directed at the general public which involves the remunera-
tion being calculated as a proportion of the television chan-

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH

Defendant: Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of
Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and the
Autonomous Province of Bolzano

C 95/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Question referred

Are national provisions (Articles 2 and 8 of Decree-Law No 61/
2000) which impose an obligation on employers to send a copy
of part-time employment contracts within 30 days of
their
the
conclusion to the competent provincial department of
Labour Inspectorate, which imposes a fine of EUR 15 per
employee concerned and per day of delay for failure to do so,
and which do not set an upper limit for the administrative fine,
compatible with Community law provisions and Directive 97/
81/EC of 15 December 1997 (1)?

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-57/07)

(2007/C 95/31)

Language of the case: French

(1) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.

Parties

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
Bozen (Italy) lodged on 1 February 2007 — Ruth Volgger,
Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH v Labour Inspectorate
of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (now the employ-
ment protection office) and Autonomous Province of
Bolzano

(Case C-56/07)

(2007/C 95/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Bozen

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right
to family reunification (1), or in any event, by failing to
notify the Commission of such measures, the Grand-Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

— order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/86/EC expired on
3 October 2005.

Parties to the main proceedings

(1) OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

Applicants: Ruth Volgger, Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH

Defendants: Labour Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of
Bolzano (now the employment protection office) and Autono-
mous Province of Bolzano

Question referred

Are national provisions (Articles 2 and 8 of Decree-Law No 61/
2000) which impose an obligation on employers to send a copy
their
of part-time employment contracts within 30 days of
conclusion to the competent provincial department of
the
Labour Inspectorate, which imposes a fine of EUR 15 per
employee concerned and per day of delay for failure to do so,
and which do not set an upper limit for the administrative fine,
compatible with Community law provisions and Directive 97/
81/EC of 15 December 1997 (1)?

(1) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-61/07)

(2007/C 95/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg