Case C-69/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2008 — Raffaello Visciano v I.N.P.S.
Date: 2008-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, credit guarantee, employer, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, pay, remuneration of work

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/19

2. Is transposition of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Deci-
sion 2002/584/JHA in such a way that the extradition of a
State's own nationals against their will for the purpose of
execution of sentence is always impermissible, whereas extra-
dition of nationals of other Member States against their will
can be authorised at the discretion of the authorities, compa-
tible with Union law,
in particular with the principles of
non-discrimination and Union citizenship under Article 6(1)
of the Treaty on European Union (EU) in conjunction with
Articles 12 and 17 et seq. of the EC Treaty (EC) and, if so, are
those principles at least to be taken into account in the exer-
cise of that discretion?

2. Is Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC) to
be interpreted as meaning that the inheritance tax which
another European Union Member State levies in respect of
the
the acquisition, by an heir resident
capital claims of a testator last resident in Germany against
credit institutions in that other Member State must be cred-
ited against German inheritance tax?

in Germany, of

3. In deciding which of the States involved has to avoid double
taxation is the justification for
the different connecting
factors in the national tax law systems relevant and, if so, is
the connection to the residence of the creditor more justified
than the connection to the registered office of the debtor?

(1) OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
lodged on 20 February 2008 —
nanzhof

(Germany)
Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Napoli, Sezione Lavoro (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2008
— Raffaello Visciano v I.N.P.S.

(Case C-67/08)

(2008/C 107/29)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-69/08)

(2008/C 107/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Margarete Block

Defendant: Finanzamt Kaufbeuren

Questions referred

1. Do the provisions of Article 73d(1)(a) and (3) of the EC
Treaty (now Article 58(1)(a) and (3) EC) allow the crediting
of Spanish inheritance tax against German inheritance tax to
be precluded under Paragraph 21(1) and (2)(1) of
the
Erbschaftsteuer- und Schenkungsteuergesetz (Law on inheri-
tance and gift tax) in conjunction with Paragraph 121 of the
Bewertungsgesetz (Valuation Law) (category restriction) even
in the case of deaths which occurred in 1999?

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli, Sezione Lavoro

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaello Visciano

Defendant: I.N.P.S.

Questions referred

1. Do Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 80/987 (1) of 20 October
1980 — where they provide for the payment of workers'
outstanding claims relating to pay — allow such claims,
when they come to be enforced against the guarantee institu-
tion, to be deprived of their initial nature as claims relating
to pay and to be reclassified as social security claims merely
because the payment of them has been entrusted by the
Member State to a social security institution, and therefore
allow the term ‘pay’ to be replaced in national law by the
term ‘social security benefit’?

C 107/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

2. As regards the social purpose of the directive, is it sufficient
for the national legislation to use the employee's initial claim
relating to pay merely as a basis of comparison against
which to determine per relationem the benefit to be guaran-
teed through the intervention of the guarantee institution or
is it a requirement that the worker's claim relating to pay
against the insolvent employer be protected, through the
intervention of the guarantee institution, by ensuring that its
scope, guarantees and time-limits and the procedures for its
exercise are the same as those available for any other employ-
ment claim under the same legal order?

3. Do the principles inferable from Community legislation, and
in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness,
allow the application to employees' outstanding claims
relating to pay, for the period determined in accordance with
Article 4 of Directive 80/987, of limitation rules that are less
favourable than those applied to claims of a similar nature?

(1) OJ L 283, p. 23.

Annex II project
the
project to assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of
the Directive?

there is no requirement

to subject

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative whether
that requirement was satisfied by the content of the letter
dated 4 December 2006 from the Secretary of State?

3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, what is the
extent of the requirement to give reasons in this context?

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(OJ L 175, p. 40).

(2) OJ L 73, p. 5.
(3) Directive 2003/35/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in
respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating
to the environment and amending with regard to public participation
and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC
(OJ L 156, p. 17).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 February
2008 — The Queen on the application of Christopher
Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government

(Case C-75/08)

(2008/C 107/31)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 29 February 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-94/08)

(2008/C 107/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christopher Mellor

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet and L. Lozano Palacios, agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government

Questions referred

1. Whether under Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1)
as amended by directives 97/11/EC (2) and 2003/35/EC (3)
(‘the Directive’) Member States must make available to the
public reasons for a determination that in respect of an

— Declare that, by maintaining in its legislation the require-
ment of Spanish nationality for persons occupying the posts
of captain and chief mate of all merchant ships flying the
Spanish flag other
ships with a gross
than merchant
tonnage less than 100 GT, which carry cargo or fewer than
100 passengers and operate exclusively between ports or
points situated in areas in which Spain has sovereignty,
sovereign rights or jurisdiction, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, and in
particular Article 39 EC.

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.