Case C-154/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — 01051 Telekom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany)
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, communications systems, competition law, interpretation of the law, systems interconnection, telecommunications

C 140/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Is the incompatibility with Community law of such a require-
ment, which is a provision of domestic law, to be taken into
account by the national court in proceedings concerning the
approval of a contribution by the interconnected network
operator?

Is the incompatibility with Community law of such a require-
ment, which is a provision of domestic law, to be taken into
account by the national court in proceedings concerning the
approval of a contribution by the interconnected network
operator?

(1) OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10.
(2) OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.

(1) OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10.
(2) OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht
lodged on 20 March 2007 —
Communication Services TELE2 GmbH v Bundesrepublik
Deutschland

(Germany)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht
lodged on 20 March 2007 —
01051 Telekom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Federal Republic of Germany)

(Germany)

(Case C-153/07)

(2007/C 140/13)

(Case C-154/07)

(2007/C 140/14)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Communication Services TELE2 GmbH

Applicant: 01051 Telekom GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Intervener: Deutsche Telekom AG

Intervener: Deutsche Telekom AG

Questions referred

Questions referred

Are Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on
competition in the markets for telecommunications services
(Competition Directive) (1) and Directive 97/33/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on inter-
connection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring
universal service and interoperability through application of the
principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (Interconnection
Directive) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the national
regulatory authority is precluded from requiring, in 2003, the
operator of a network which is interconnected with a public
local telecommunications network to pay a contribution to the
market-dominant operator of
the local network in order to
compensate him for the deficit incurred as a result of providing
the local loop?

Are Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on
competition in the markets for telecommunications services
(Competition Directive) (1) and Directive 97/33/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on inter-
connection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring
universal service and interoperability through application of the
principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (Interconnection
Directive) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the national
regulatory authority is precluded from requiring, in 2003, the
operator of a network which is interconnected with a public
local telecommunications network to pay a contribution to the
market-dominant operator of
the local network in order to
compensate him for the deficit incurred as a result of providing
the local loop?

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/9

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Is the incompatibility with Community law of such a require-
ment, which is a provision of domestic law, to be taken into
account by the national court in proceedings concerning the
approval of a contribution by the interconnected network
operator?

(1) OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10.
(2) OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2007 — Salvatore Aiello
and Others v Comune di Milano, Sindaco di Milano, Comi-
tato tecnico — scientifico per l'emergenza del traffico e
della mobilità nella città di Milano, Provincia di Milano,
Regione Lombardia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei
Trasporti, Ministero dell'Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio
dei Ministri, Euromilano SpA, Metropolitana milanese SpA

(Case C-156/07)

(2007/C 140/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Salvatore Aiello and Others

Defendants: Comune di Milano, Sindaco di Milano, Comitato
tecnico — scientifico per l'emergenza del traffico e della mobi-
lità nella
città di Milano, Provincia di Milano, Regione
Lombardia, Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Minis-
tero dell'Interno, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Euromi-
lano SpA, Metropolitana milanese SpA

2. Does Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC, in so far as
it gives Member States the possibility of providing for envir-
onmental impact assessments to be carried out for projects
in the classes listed in Annex II on the basis of case-by-case
assessments or predetermined criteria — account also being
taken of the criteria set out in Annex III — create a specific
obligation or merely an option for the Member States to take
account of all the criteria listed in Annex III?

3. Does Article 1 of the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996
constitute due transposition into national law of Article 4 of
Directive 85/337/EEC and Annex III thereto by the Italian
legislature, given that it does not provide, as a criterion for
making projects in the classes listed in Annex II to the Direc-
tive subject to an environmental impact assessment, for the
criterion of cumulation with other projects, as referred to in
Annex III to the Directive?

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-161/07)

(2007/C 140/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by E. Traversa and G. Braun, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

Questions referred

1. Must Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1), in so far
as it states that projects likely to have significant effects on
the environment are to be made subject to an environmental
impact assessment, and that such projects are defined in
Article 4, be interpreted as meaning:

— that any project with a significant effect on the environ-
ment must, even if it is not listed in Annexes I or II to
the Directive, be made subject
to an environmental
impact assessment;

— or, conversely,

that only projects of a kind listed in
Annexes I and II to the Directive must be made subject
to an environmental impact assessment?

— declare that, by requiring, for the registration of companies
in the register of commerce on application by nationals of
the new Member States of the EU other than Malta and
Cyprus, a determination of their self-employed status by the
employment market service or the production of a certifi-
cate of exemption, in which connection, for determining the
self-employed status of members of a partnership or
minority shareholders in a limited liability company who
perform work for the company that is typically performed
in an employment relationship, a determination procedure is
to be carried out during which, for a maximum of three
months, the self-employed activity may not be pursued, the
Republic of Austria has infringed Article 43 EC;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.