Case C-364/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Greece) lodged on 2 August 2007 — Spyridon Vassilakis and Others v Municipality of Corfu
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, interpretation of the law, interprofessional agreement, temporary employment, work contract

C 247/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

5. Must

the principles,

to be inferred from … Directive
[89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on
the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures
freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing
them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision
to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibi-
lity of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of
Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the
the
applicant company, with the consequent need for
administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

(1) Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the
transparency of measures
regulating the pricing of medicinal
products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national
health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
Justice
(England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 31 July
2007 — The Queen on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd
v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue &
Customs and Royal Mail Group Ltd

(Case C-357/07)

(2007/C 247/15)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of
Division (Administrative Court)

Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TNT Post UK Ltd

Defendant: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue &
Customs

b) Is the interpretation of that expression affected by the fact
that postal services in a Member State have been liberal-
ised, there are no reserved services within the meaning of
Council Directive 97/67/EC (3), as amended, and there is
one designated universal service provider that has been
notified to the Commission pursuant to that Directive
(such as Royal Mail in the United Kingdom)?

c) in the circumstances of the present case (which are as set

out in b) above) does that expression include

(i) only the sole designated universal services provider

(such as Royal Mail in the United Kingdom) or

(ii) also a private postal operator (such as TNT Post)?

2. In the circumstances of the present case, is Article 13A(1)(a)
of the Sixth VAT Directive (now Article 132(1)(a) of Direc-
tive 2006/112) to be interpreted as requiring or permitting a
Member State to exempt all postal services provided by ‘the
public postal services’?

3. If Member States are required or permitted to exempt some,
but not all, of the services provided by ‘the public postal
services’, by reference to which criteria are those services, by
reference to which criteria are those services to be identified?

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

(2) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the

common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).

(3) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the
internal market of Community postal services and the improvement
of quality of service (OJ L 15, p. 14).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles
Protodikio Kerkyras (Greece) lodged on 2 August 2007 —
Spyridon Vassilakis and Others v Municipality of Corfu

(Case C-364/07)

(2007/C 247/16)

Interested Party: Royal Mail Group Ltd

Language of the case: Greek

Questions referred

1. a) How is the expression ‘the public postal services’

in
Article 13A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Directive
77/388/EEC) (1)
(now Article 132(1)(a) of Directive
2006/112 (2)) to be interpreted?

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikio Kerkyras (Corfu Court of First Instance)

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/13

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Spyridon Vassilakis and Others

Defendant: Dimos Kerkyras (Municipality of Corfu)

Questions referred

1. Must a national court — as far as possible — interpret its
domestic law in accordance with a directive which was trans-
posed belatedly into its national legal system from

(a) the time when the directive entered into force, or

(b) the time when the time-limit

into
law elapsed without any action having been

for transposing it

national
taken, or

(c) the time when the national measure implementing it

entered into force?

2. Does Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-
term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which
constitutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70
(OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999) mean that, apart
from reasons connected with the nature, type or characteris-
tics of the work performed or other similar reasons, the
mere fact that the conclusion of a fixed term contract is
required by a provision of
law or secondary legislation
constitutes an objective reason for continually renewing or
concluding successive fixed-term employment contracts?

3. May Clause 5(1) and (2) of the Framework Agreement on
fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP,
which constitutes an integral part of Council Directive
1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999), be inter-
preted to the effect that national provisions which lay down
that fixed-term employment contracts or relationships are to
be regarded as successive only provided a period of at most
three months separates them and, further, that the presump-
tion introduced in favour of the worker that successive fixed-
term employment contracts or relationships should be recog-
nised as of unlimited duration is necessarily based on the
above precondition?

4. Is the prohibition in Article 21 of Law 2190/1994 of the
conversion of successive fixed-term contracts of employment
into contracts of unlimited duration, those contracts having
been concluded for a fixed term in order to cover the excep-
tional or seasonal needs of the employer but in fact for the
purpose of meeting its fixed and permanent needs, compa-
tible with the principle of the effectiveness of Community
law and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction
with Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term
work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which consti-
tutes an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999
L 175, p. 43 of 10 July 1999)?

5. Is the fact that an independent administrative authority, the
Anotato Simvoulio Epilogis Prosopikou (ASEP — the

Supreme Staff Selection Council) has the final word, under a
national provision, enacted in application of the above direc-
tive, on whether or not
fixed-term contracts can be
converted into contracts of indefinite duration compatible
with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law
and the purpose of Clause 5(1) and (2), in conjunction with
Clause 1 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work
concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which constitutes an
integral part of Council Directive 1999/70 (OJ 1999 L 175,
p. 43 of 10 July 1999)?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)
lodged on
2 August 2007 — Simesa SpA v Ministero della Salute and
Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Others

(Case C-365/07)

(2007/C 247/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Simesa SpA

Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco
(AIFA) and Others

Questions referred

the

1. After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of
Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate
relationship
between the public authorities of a Member State and the
pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a
medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined
on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only
in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and
thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings
themselves and the authorities competent to supervise phar-
maceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive]
concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or
on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price
freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which
is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at
least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic
conditions existing in the Member State in question.