Case C-128/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Angelo Molinari v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, anti-discriminatory measure, early retirement, interpretation of the law, sexual discrimination, tax on income, tax system

C 117/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbitration
Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech
Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic
(Czech Republic) lodged on 26 February 2007 — Reise-
büro Bühler GmbH v Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

(Case C-126/07)

(2007/C 117/11)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Société Arcelor Atlan-
tique et Lorraine, Société Sollac Méditerranée, Société
Arcelor Packaging International, Société Ugine & Alz
France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot Métal,
Société Imphy Alloys and Société Arcelor v Premier
ministre, Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'In-
dustrie, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Développement
durable

(Case C-127/07)

(2007/C 117/12)

Language of the case: French

Referring court or tribunal

Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the
the Czech
Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of
Republic

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: Reisebüro Bühler GmbH

Respondents: Dom.info e.K., Sebastian Dieterle

Questions referred

1. Is the Arbitration Court for the resolution of .eu domain
name disputes attached to the Economic Chamber of the
the Czech
Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of
Republic (Czech Arbitration Court), established pursuant to
Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1), empowered to refer ques-
tions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under
the second paragraph of Article 234 EC?

2. If the Court's answer to the first question is in the affirma-

tive:

the power

Does
in Article 22(5) of Regulation (EC)
No 874/2004 permit alternative dispute resolution rules
(ADR Rules) to be made, according to which, inter alia, a
respondent can not only apply for a complaint
to be
dismissed but can also seek a declaration that a complaint
was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of admin-
istrative proceeding (Paragraph B12(h) of the ADR Rules)?

3. If the Court's answer to the second question is in the nega-

tive:

Is an ADR panel of the Arbitration Court entitled to deter-
mine the application for a declaration on the basis of any
other Community law or on the basis of general legal princi-
ples of Community law arising from the constitutional tradi-
tions of the Member States?

(1) OJ L 162, p. 40.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Société Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine, Société Sollac
Méditerranée, Société Arcelor Packaging International, Société
Ugine & Alz France, Société Industeel Loire, Société Creusot
Métal, Société Imphy Alloys and Société Arcelor

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de
l'Économie, des
Finances et de l'Industrie, Ministre de l'Écologie et du Dévelop-
pement durable

Question referred

Is Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 (1) valid in the
light of the principle of equal treatment, in so far as that Direc-
tive makes the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
scheme applicable to installations in the steel sector without
including in its scope the aluminium and plastic industries?

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March
2007 — Angelo Molinari v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

(Case C-128/07)

(2007/C 117/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale Di Latina

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/9

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelo Molinari

Applicant: Giovanni Galeota

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Must the judgment in Case C-207/04 (1) be interpreted as
meaning that the Italian legislature should have extended to
men the advantageous age-limit that applies to women?

2. Must it be held in the present case that a rate equal to half of
the rate applied for the taxation of severance pay must be
applied to sums received as voluntary redundancy incentives
by men who have passed the age of 50?

3. Given that amounts paid by way of personal income tax do
not form part of the taxpayer's salary since they are not paid
by the employer in respect of the employment, and given
that an amount paid by an employer to an employee as an
incentive is not in the nature of pay, is it consistent with
Community law to rule that the application of different age
limits — namely 50 years of age for women and 55 years of
age for men — is contrary to Community law, in light of the
fact that Directive No 79/7 (2) permits the Member States to
preserve different pensionable ages?

4. Must Community law (Council Directive 76/207/EEC (3) of
9 February 1976, which prohibits discrimination on grounds
of sex) be interpreted as precluding — or as not precluding
— application of the relevant national rules that gave rise to
the present case, with the effect that the national legislation
(Article 17(4a) (now Article 19(4a) of DPR No 917/86) must
be regarded as incompatible — or compatible — with Com-
munity law?

1. Must the judgment in Case C-207/04 (1) be interpreted as
meaning that the Italian legislature should have extended to
men the advantageous age-limit that applies to women?

2. Must it be held in the present case that a rate equal to half of
the rate applied for the taxation of severance pay must be
applied to sums received as voluntary redundancy incentives
by men who have passed the age of 50?

3. Given that amounts paid by way of personal income tax do
not form part of the taxpayer's salary since they are not paid
by the employer in respect of the employment, and given
that an amount paid by an employer to an employee as an
incentive is not in the nature of pay, is it consistent with
Community law to rule that the application of different age
limits — namely 50 years of age for women and 55 years of
age for men — is contrary to Community law, in light of the
fact that Directive No 79/7 (2) permits the Member States to
preserve different pensionable ages?

4. Must Community law (Council Directive 76/207/EEC (3) of
9 February 1976, which prohibits discrimination on grounds
of sex) be interpreted as precluding — or as not precluding
— application of the relevant national rules that gave rise to
the present case, with the effect that the national legislation
(Article 17(4a) (now Article 19(4a) of DPR No 917/86) must
be regarded as incompatible — or compatible — with Com-
munity law?

(1) Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona [2005] ECR

I-7453.

(2) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
(3) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.

(1) Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona [2005] ECR

I-7453.

(2) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
(3) OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March
2007 — Giovanni Galeota v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 5 March
2007 — Salvatore Barbagallo v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio
Latina

(Case C-129/07)

(2007/C 117/14)

(Case C-130/07)

(2007/C 117/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina