Case C-386/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, freedom to provide services, income in addition to normal pay, interpretation of the law, lawyer, provision of services

C 283/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

6. Does

it

follow from Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 which states that ‘[w]here necessary, it may be
determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 13 whether a type of food or food ingredient falls
within the scope of paragraph 2 of this Article’ that in the
event of a dispute an undertaking must be regarded as under
an obligation to seek that determination and to await the
results thereof? May, in addition, any indications be deduced
from that provision and from Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 258/97 concerning the burden of producing evidence
(Darlegungslast) and the substantive burden of proof?

(1) OJ L 43, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
lodged on 13 August 2007 —
gerichtshof
Wienstrom GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und
Arbeit

(Austria)

(Case C-384/07)

(2007/C 283/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wienstrom GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

national law, if such application is based on the new version
of that law, which the Commission has held to be compa-
tible with the common market, although the measure
concerns periods of time before that new version and the
amendments which were decisive for
the declaration of
compatibility were not yet applicable to that period, and the
case file does not reveal any infringement of the rights of
third parties?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy)
lodged on 14 August 2007 — Hospital
Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie
SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
SpA, Officina
Service SpA, Draeger Medica

Italia

Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

(Case C-386/07)

(2007/C 283/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA,
Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA

Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica
Divisione Servizi SpA

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Does the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC require that the
the prohibition
should, on grounds of
national court
contained in that provision on putting State aid into effect,
refuse further grants of State aid to a beneficiary of aid who
under national law is in principle entitled to aid, although
the Commission, while regretting the non-notification of the
aid, has not adopted either a decision under Article 4(2) of
Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 or a
measure under Article 14 of that regulation, and the case file
does not reveal any infringement of
third
parties?

the rights of

2. Does the prohibition under Article 88(3) EC on putting State
aid into effect preclude the application of a provision of

1.

the minimum fees and
‘Does the mandatory nature of
charges set in respect of services provided by lawyers consti-
tute a measure which favours members of the profession
concerned, contrary to Articles 81 EC and 10 EC (formerly
Articles 85 and 5 of the EC Treaty)?

2. Does the prohibition of the reduction by courts, when deter-
mining costs, of the minimum limits set in the individual
items of the scale, by reason of the mandatory nature of the
minimum fees and charges set in respect of services provided
by lawyers, constitute a measure which favours members of
the profession concerned,
in
Articles 81 EC and 10 EC?

contrary

to the

rules

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/9

3. Does the obligation to state reasons, which is in any event
imposed, for the reduction of fees below the minimum limit,
and which conflicts with the practice of the administrative
courts of calculating the costs of a case on the basis of a
variety of factors relating to the outcome of the proceedings
and not on that of the actual economic value of the dispute,
constitute a restriction on the practice of the profession of
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than
that in which the qualification was obtained, as guaranteed
by recital (7) in the preamble to Directive 98/5/EC (1)?’

(1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.

packaging made of various materials or made up of separate
components of different materials?

(1) OJ 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ 226, p. 3.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
(England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division
Justice
(Administrative Court)
(United Kingdom) made on
9 August 2007 — The Queen on the application of the
Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for Ageing
(Age Concern England), v Secretary of State for Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Ancona (Italia) lodged on 13 August 2007 — MI.VER Srl,
Daniele Antonelli v Provincia di Macerata

(Case C-387/07)

(2007/C 283/15)

(Case C-388/07)

(2007/C 283/16)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Ancona (Italia)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MI.VER Srl, Daniele Antonelli

Defendant: Provincia di Macerata

Questions referred

High Court of
Division (Administrative Court)

Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Incorporated Trustees of the National Council for
Ageing (Age Concern England)

Defendant: Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regula-
tory Reform

Questions referred

In relation to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November
2000, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in
employment and occupation (1) (‘the Directive’):

1. Is the notion of ‘temporary deposit’

in terms of Directive
75/442/EEC (1) on waste such as to permit a producer to
mix together items of waste covered by different respective
codes in the European Waste Catalogue, as provided for in
Commission Decision 2000/532/EC (2) of 3 May 2000?

1. National retirement ages and the scope of the Directive

(i) Does the scope of the Directive extend to national rules
which permit employers to dismiss employees aged 65
or over by reason of retirement?

2. If the answer is in the affirmative, may EWC Code 15 01 06
(‘imballaggi
‘mixed packaging’) be used to
cover waste consisting of packaging of various materials
grouped together, or does that code refer exclusively to

in materiali misti’,

(ii) Does the scope of the Directive extend to national rules
which permit employers to dismiss employees aged 65
or over by reason of retirement where they were intro-
duced after the Directive was made?