Case C-388/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (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
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, age discrimination, dismissal, employment policy, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, retirement conditions

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?

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