Case C-2/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on  2 January 2008 — Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze Agenzia delle Entrate v Olimpiclub Srl
Date: 2008-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax avoidance, tax evasion, tax law

C 79/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.3.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Asturias
lodged on
27 December 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria
del Pilar Chao Gómez v Consejería de Salud y Servicios
Sanitarios del Principado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez
Gómez

(Spain)

(Case C-571/07)

(2008/C 79/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: José Manuel Blanco Pérez and Maria del Pilar Chao
Gómez

Defendants: Consejería de Salud y Servicios Sanitarios del Princi-
pado de Asturias and Celso Fernandez Gómez

Question referred

Does Article 43 [EC] preclude the legislation of the Autono-
mous Community of the Principality of Asturias concerning
authorisation for the establishment of pharmacies?

on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) can be interpreted as
meaning that the letting of an apartment (and possibly of
non-residential premises) on the one hand and the related
cleaning of the common parts on the other hand can be
regarded as independent, mutually-divisible taxable transac-
tions.

2. If, as the referring court suspects, the answer to the first
question is in the negative,
it further asks the Court of
Justice whether the provisions of Article 13 of that directive,
and in particular the introduction and part B(b) thereof:
(1) require; (2) preclude; or (3) leave to the determination of
the Member State the application of VAT to payment for
cleaning of the common parts of a rented apartment block.

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema
lodged on 2 January 2008 —
di Cassazione (Italy)
Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze Agenzia
delle Entrate v Olimpiclub Srl

(Case C-2/08)

(2008/C 79/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský Soud
v Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 December
2007 — RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o. v Finanční ředitelství
v Ústí nad Labem

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

(Case C-572/07)

(2008/C 79/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský Soud v Ústí nad Labem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o.

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem

Questions referred

1. Whether the provisions of Article 6 (Supply of services) and
Article 13 (Exemptions within the territory of the country)
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze,
Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl

Question referred

‘Does Community law preclude the application of a provision of
national law, such as Article 2909 of the [Italian] Civil Code,
laying down the principle of res judicata, where the application
of that provision would lead to a result incompatible with Com-
munity law, thereby thwarting its application, even in areas
other than State aid (in relation to which, see Case C-119/05
Lucchini SpA [2007] ECR I-0000) and, in particular, in matters
relating to VAT and with respect to the misuse of rights in order
to obtain undue tax savings, in particular in the light also of the
rules of national law — as interpreted in the case-law of this
Court — according to which, in tax disputes, where a giudicato

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/15

esterno [a final judgment drawn up by another court in a case
on the same subject] contains a finding on a fundamental issue
common to other cases, it has binding authority as regards that
issue, even if it was drawn up in relation to a different tax
period?’

incapacity for work, of an allowance that takes into account
the length of time worked and the period of contribution in
the type A country (Belgium)?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
cation of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the Com-
munity (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 January 2008
d'assurance
— Ketty

national

Leyman

Institut

v

maladie-invalidité (I.N.A.M.I.)

(Case C-3/08)

(2008/C 79/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ketty Leyman

Defendant: Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (I.N.A.
M.I.)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
lodged on
4 January 2008 — Michael Mario Karl Kerner v Land
Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-4/08)

(2008/C 79/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Michael Mario Karl Kerner

Respondent: Land Baden-Württemberg

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and
Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on
medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to
Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and
works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves
to a type B country (in this case,
the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg), they do not permit, during the first year of
incapacity for work, the grant of an allowance that takes into
account the length of time worked and the period of contri-
bution in the type A country (Belgium)?

2. Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and
Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on
medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to
Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and
works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves
the Grand Duchy of
to a type B country (in this case,
Luxembourg), they give rise to discrimination to the detri-
ment of a worker exercising her right of free movement in
not permitting the grant to her, during the first year of

1. Does Article 8(4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July
1991 on driving licences (1) preclude the application of a
provision of national law which, in the event of a previous
withdrawal of a driving licence in the Member State in ques-
tion, makes possible recognition of a driving licence issued
by another Member State on condition that it is established
that the facts which originally led to the withdrawal of the
driving licence no longer exist, even if

— recognition of that driving licence is not required in the
interest of giving effect to the fundamental freedom of
free movement on the part of citizens of the Union,

— the driving licence was issued in the other Member State
in clear breach of the provisions of the Directive (resi-
dence requirement),

— the issuing Member State itself, when issuing the driving
licence, must have been aware of this clear breach of the
provisions of the Directive,

— according to the Member State of residence, the issuing
Member State generally refuses to annul driving licences
issued in breach of Community law,