Case C-390/07: Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, eutrophication, sensitive area, urban area, wastewater, water treatment

C 283/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

(iii) In the light of the answers to (i) and (ii) above

Questions referred

(1) were section 109 and/or 156 of

the 1996 Act,

and/or

(2) are Regulations 30 and 7, when read with Schedules
8 and 6 to the Regulations, national provisions
laying down retirement ages within the meaning of
Recital 14?

2. The definition of direct age discrimination:

justification

defence

iv) Does Article 6(1) of the Directive permit Member States
to introduce legislation providing that a difference of
treatment on grounds of age does not constitute discrimi-
nation if it is determined to be a proportionate means of
achieving a legitimate aim, or does Article 6(1) require
Member States to define the kinds of differences of treat-
ment which may be so justified, by a list or other
measure which is
to
Article 6(1)?

in form and content

similar

3. The

for
test
discrimination

the

justification of direct and indirect

(v) Is there any, and if so what, significant practical differ-
ence between the test
in
for
Article 2(2) of the Directive in relation to indirect discri-
mination, and the test for justification set out in relation
to direct age discrimination at Article 6(1) of the Direc-
tive?

justification set out

(1) OJ L 303, p. 16.

(1) Is the Combined Nomenclature (Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 (1) as amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1734/96) to be interpreted as requiring that the
representative sample goods in issue between the parties be
classified as ‘Automatic data-processing machines and units’
thereof under tariff heading 8471 (or under the relevant
parts heading of Chapter 84, that is to say tariff heading
8473)?

(2) If the answer to Question (1) is in the negative in respect of
one or more of the representative sample goods in issue
between the parties, is the Combined Nomenclature to be
interpreted as requiring that such goods be classified as
‘Electrical apparatus for line telephony or line telegraphy,
including line telephone sets with cordless handsets and tele-
communications apparatus for carrier-current line systems
or for digital line systems; videophones’ under tariff heading
8517 (or under the relevant parts heading, that is to say
tariff heading 8517 or 8548, pursuant to Note 2(b) or (c) of
Section XVI)?

(3) Are such of

the representative sample goods in issue
between the parties as are capable of linking LANs always
classifiable under Chapter 84 or do such products thereby
than data processing
perform a specific function other
within the meaning of Chapter 84 Note 5(E)?

(4) In the light of the answers to the previous questions, what

is the position in relation to chassis products?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
(OJ L 256, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from VAT and Duties
Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom) made on 10 August
2007 — Azlan Group plc v Her Majesty's Commissioners of
Revenue and Customs

Action brought on 17 August 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

(Case C-389/07)

(2007/C 283/17)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-390/07)

(2007/C 283/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

Parties

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azlan Group plc

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, X. Lewis and H. van Vliet,
Agents)

Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue
Customs

and

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/11

The applicant claims that the Court should:

tive areas of Lough Neagh and Upper and Lower Lough Erne, as
was required by 31 December 1998.

1. Declare that, by having failed to

— identify the Humber Estuary, The Wash, the Deben and
Colne Estuaries, the Outer Thames Estuary, Southampton
Water and the North East Irish Sea — with the exception
of the Solway Firth — as sensitive areas with respect to
eutrophication;

— subject to more stringent treatment discharges of urban
from agglomerations with a population
waste water
equivalent (p.e.) of more than 10 000 into the Humber
Estuary, The Wash, the Deben and Colne Estuaries, the
Outer Thames Estuary, Southampton Water, the North
East Irish Sea — with the exception of the Solway Firth
—, and into Lough Neagh and Upper and Lower Lough
Erne,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
its obligations pursuant to Article 3(1),
has failed to fulfil
3(2), 5(1), 5(2), 5(3) and 5(5) of, and Annex II to, Council
Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treat-
ment.

2. Order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the Commission's view the United Kingdom has taken an
excessively restrictive approach to the identification of sensitive
areas. This is not only because of the relatively high threshold
of proof required by the United Kingdom before accepting that
a water body is eutrophic, but also the fact that the United
Kingdom makes no reference to the need also to identify those
water bodies which are at risk and may in the near future
become eutrophic if protective action is not taken.

Because the United Kingdom has failed to identify as sensitive
areas the Humber estuary, the Wash, the Deben and Colne estu-
aries, the Outer Thames estuary and Southampton Water and
the North East Irish Sea (excluding the Solway Firth) the waste
water
from the agglomerations of more that 10 000 p.e.
discharging waste waters into these areas, as well as those
agglomerations which are situated in their relevant catchment
areas, have not been made subject to the collection and treat-
ment obligations foreseen in the directive for sensitive areas by
the 31 December 1998 deadline.

London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Kingston upon Hull and
Southampton are among the agglomerations implicated. This
puts the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the
directive, and in particular of those specified in Article 3(1) and
(2) and in Article 5(2), (3) and (5) and annex II thereof.

the United
The Commission is also of
Kingdom has failed to ensure that the full obligations set out in
Articles 5(2), (3) and (5) of the directive have been met for a
number of agglomerations discharging into the designated sensi-

the opinion that

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

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'Appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 August 2007 —
Marco Gambazzi v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc and CIBC
Mellon Trust Company

(Case C-394/07)

(2007/C 283/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'Appello di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marco Gambazzi

Respondents: Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc, CIBC Mellon Trust
Company

Questions referred

1. On the basis of the public-policy clause in Article 27(1) of
the Brussels Convention, may the court of
the State
requested to enforce a judgment take account of the fact that
the court of the State which handed down that judgment
denied the unsuccessful party — which had entered an
appearance — the opportunity to present any form of
defence following the issue of a debarring order as described
[in the grounds of the present Order]?

2. Or does the interpretation of that provision in conjunction
with the principles to be inferred from Article 26 et seq. of
the Convention, concerning the mutual recognition and
enforcement of judgments within the Community, preclude
the national court from finding that civil proceedings in
which a party has been prevented from exercising the rights
of the defence, on grounds of a debarring order issued by
the court because of that party's failure to comply with a
court injunction, are contrary to public policy within the
meaning of Article 27(1)?