Case C-132/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs inspection, customs regulations, form, fraud, illicit trade, industrial counterfeiting, interpretation of the law, surveillance concerning imports

C 117/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Questions referred

Applicant: Salvatore Barbagallo

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

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) 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. 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.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2007
— Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo
Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer
Consumer
Healthcare

and

NV
GlaxoSmithKline
Healthcare BV v Andacon NV

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

(Case C-131/07)

(2007/C 117/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Latina

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michele Ciampi

(Case C-132/07)

(2007/C 117/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo
Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer
Healthcare NV, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Latina

Defendant: Andacon NV

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/11

Questions referred

1. Must the first paragraph of Article 9 of Regulation (EC)
No 1891/04 (1) be construed as prohibiting the competent
customs service or
the competent customs office from
providing, or causing to be provided, information within the
terms of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 (2), or
arranging, or causing to be arranged, an inspection within
the terms of the second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 1383/03, so long as the application for
action made prior to 1 July 2004 has not been supple-
mented by the declaration referred to in Article 6 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1383/03? In other words, is the declaration in
question a formal condition governing the continued effec-
tiveness of the application for action?

2. Is Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 to be
construed as allowing the Antwerp customs authorities to
grant the trade mark proprietor access to six samples of the
goods in order to be able to determine whether or not the
goods in question were counterfeit, it being understood that
such notification of a sample is not to be treated as equiva-
lent
the
to a thorough inspection within the terms of
second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 1383/03? If so, ought this granting of access to have
occurred within the period of three working days laid down
in Article 4(1) of that regulation?

3. Does Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 preclude Belgian customs
officials from providing information, acquired in the context
of implementation of that regulation, outside the channels
inter alia,
envisaged thereby — reference being made to,
Article 9(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 — for example, within the
context of the questioning of witnesses or submission of
documents ordered by Belgian courts?

4. Does Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 preclude information
obtained as a result of the application of Articles 4(2) (see
Question 2) and 9(2) and (3) thereof, other than that referred
to in the first subparagraph of Article 9(3), or information
obtained pursuant to the questioning of witnesses or submis-
sion of documents ordered by Belgian courts (see Ques-
tion 3), from being used in the context of proceedings not
designed to secure a declaration that goods are counterfeit,
for example in connection with proceedings to counter
parallel imports?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods
suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the
measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such
rights (OJ 2004 L 328, p. 16).

(2) OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7.

Appeal brought on 6 March 2007 by Raiffeisen
Zentralbank Österreich AG against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on
14 December 2006 in Joined Cases T-259/02 to T-264/02
and T-271/02 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG and
the European Communities
Others v Commission of

concerning Case T-259/02

(Case C-133/07 P)

(2007/C 117/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG (represented by:
S. Völcker and G. Terhorst, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities of 14 December 2006 in Joined
Cases T 259/02 to T-264/02 and T-271/02 (1) in so far as it
dismisses RZB's action;

— Annulment of Article 3 of

the Commission decision of
11 June 2002 (C (2002) 2091 final) in so far as it concerns
RZB;

— In the alternative, a reduction at the discretion of the Court
in the fine imposed on RZB in Article 3 of the contested
decision;

— The Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

infringed Article 81 EC by accepting that

the
The Court
Commission can conclude merely from the fact
that bank
committees covered the territory of one Member State that trade
between Member States may be affected.

The Court erred in law in classifying the bank committees as ‘a
very serious infringement’ within the meaning of the Guidelines
on fines. It misapplied the criteria mentioned in the Guidelines
with regard to gravity (the nature of the infringement, actual
the relevant geographic
impact on the market and size of
the
market),
the selectivity of
the
Commission's action and did not ultimately carry out
overall appraisal of all viewpoints, which it had itself demanded.

failed to take into account