Case C-239/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Sabatauskas and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy distribution, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, single market, supplier

C 170/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Question referred

sporting events, exempt

Is the supply of the following services by an agent, acting on
behalf of a principal who operates a business of taking bets on
horse-races and other
from VAT
pursuant to Article 13(B)(d)(3) (1) of the Sixth Directive, which
exempts transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit
accounts, …, payments …: namely, taking of the bets in the
name of the principal; recording the bets; confirming to the
customer, by the issue of a betting slip, that the bet has been
made; collecting the monies; paying out the winnings; assuming
sole responsibility, vis-à-vis the principal, for management of
the collected monies and for any thefts or losses of money; and
receiving remuneration for those activities in the form of a
commission from the principal?

— and by suffering the discharge of urban waste water
from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast to produce
adverse effects on the environment,

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Decision 2001/720/EC;

its obligations

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1999 Portugal made a request to the Commission for the
discharge of waste water into the Atlantic Ocean near the
estuary of
the
Estoril coast, to be subject to less stringent treatment.

from the agglomeration of

the River Tagus,

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

The Commission established that the requirements laid down in
the provision derogating from Directive 91/271/EEC (2) had
been satisfied and granted Portugal's request by means of Deci-
sion 2001/720/EC.

Action brought on 11 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-233/07)

(2007/C 170/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that

— by failing to subject, during the bathing season,

the
urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril
coast to at least advanced primary treatment and to a
disinfection system as provided for by Article 2 of Deci-
sion 2001/720/EC (1),

— by failing to subject, outside the bathing season, the
urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril
coast, prior to discharge, to at least primary treatments,
as provided for by Article 3 of Decision 2001/720/EC,

From the replies given by the Portuguese authorities to the
formal notice and reasoned opinion it is apparent that the
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
abovementioned articles of Decision 20001/720/EC.

(1) Commission Decision of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a dero-
gation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration
of the Estoril coast (OJ 2001 L 269, p. 14).

(2) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban

waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Konstitucinis
Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Sabatauskas
and Others v Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas

(Case C-239/07)

(2007/C 170/22)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Group of members of
Sabatauskas and Others

the Seimas — Julius

Interested party: Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/13

Question referred

national provisions within the meaning of Article 10(2)
of Directive 2006/116?

Is Article 20 of Directive 2003/54/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common
rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Direc-
tive 96/92/EC to be interpreted as obliging Member States to
establish legal rules whereby any third party has the right, at his
discretion, provided that the electricity system has ‘the necessary
capacity’,
to choose the system — electricity transmission
system or electricity distribution system — to which he wishes
to be connected, and the operator of that system has an obliga-
tion to grant access to the network?

(b) Does

the term of protection granted pursuant

to
Article 10(2) of Directive 2006/116 also apply to
subject-matter that, on the date specified in Article 10(1)
of that directive, fulfilled the criteria set out in Council
Directive 92/100/EEC (2) of 19 November 1992 on
rental right and lending right and on certain rights
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property,
but whose rightholder is not a Community national?

(1) OJ L 176, p. 37.

(1) OJ L 372, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 346, p. 61.

for

Reference
from the
preliminary
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2007 —
(Germany) GmbH v Falcon
Sony Music Entertainment

ruling

a

Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH

(Case C-240/07)

(2007/C 170/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sony Music Entertainment (Germany) GmbH

Respondent: Falcon Neue Medien Vertrieb GmbH

Questions referred

1. Does

term of protection granted

the European Parliament and of

by Directive
the
2006/116/EC (1) of
the
Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of
copyright and certain related rights (Directive 2006/116)
under the conditions set out in Article 10(2) thereof apply
also in the case of subject-matter that has not at any time
been protected in the Member State in which protection is
sought?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus
(Estonia) lodged on 21 May 2007 — JK Otsa Talu OÜ v
Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet (PRIA)

(Case C-241/07)

(2007/C 170/24)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JK Otsa Talu OÜ

Defendant: Põllumajanduse Registrite ja Informatsiooni Amet
(PRIA)

Questions referred

1.

‘Is it compatible with the objective of agri-environmental
support laid down in Articles 22 to 24 of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1) of 17 May 1999 on support
for
from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
repealing certain Regulations:

rural development

(a) to give continued support only to applicants for whom,
within the framework of
that programme, a decision
awarding agri-environmental support has already been
made in the previous budgetary year, and who have
entered into an environmental commitment,

(a) Do national provisions governing the protection of right-
holders who are not Community nationals constitute

or