Case C-88/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 27 February 2008 — David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz
Date: 2008-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, promotion

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/21

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Thüringer
Finanzgericht (Germany), lodged on 25 February 2008 —
Glückauf Brauerei GmbH v Hauptzollamt Erfurt

(Case C-83/08)

(2008/C 128/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Thüringer Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Glückauf Brauerei GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Erfurt

Question referred

Are the criteria of legal and economic independence referred to
in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1)
for applying the reduced
duty rates to be understood, in view of the recitals to the Direc-
tive, as meaning that economic dependence between otherwise
legally independent breweries is to be presumed only where the
breweries concerned cannot act as competitors in the market
uninfluenced by each other, or is the mere de facto possibility
of influence on the business activity of the breweries sufficient
for the criterion of independence to be met no longer?

(1) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.

Question referred

legislation (1)

Are Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of
27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal
treatment in employment and occupation to be understood as
precluding national
(here: Paragraphs 3(3) and
26(1)
1948
of
(1948 Law on contractual employees)) which excludes accredi-
table previous service from being taken into account in the
determination of the reference date for salary increments in so
far as such service was completed before the person concerned
reached the age of 18 years?

the Austrian Vertragsbedienstetengesetz

(1) OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās
tiesas Senāta (Republic of Lativa) lodged on 28 February
2008 — Schenker SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-93/08)

(2008/C 128/37)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schenker SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
lodged on 27 February 2008 —
Gerichtshof

(Austria)

David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz

Question referred

(Case C-88/08)

(2008/C 128/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: David Hütter

Defendant: Technische Universität Graz

Must Article 11 of Regulation No 1383/2003 (1) be interpreted
as precluding the possibility of
imposing a penalty on the
declarant or owner of goods under the national law, where the
intellectual property right-holder (the right-holder) reaches an
agreement, with the declarant or the owner of those goods, to
abandon them for their destruction, or engages in discussions in
respect of the possibility of the goods being abandoned for their
destruction, and in the course of that procedure, the customs
authorities receive information that the goods are counterfeit?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning
customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellec-
tual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods
found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7).