Case C-118/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL v Administración del Estado
Date: 2008-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, civil liability proceedings, general legal principle, interpretation of the law

C 128/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2008

The Hellenic Republic responded to the Commission's reasoned
opinion on 30 May 2007 and explained to the Commission
that, taking into account every possible delay in completing the
procedure, issue of the digital tachograph cards to drivers would
be possible by the end of 2007.

The Commission asks the Court to order the Hellenic Republic
to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts
v Proost NV

(Case C-116/08)

(2008/C 128/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-112/08)

(2008/C 128/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M.A. Rabanal Suárez and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the all the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2006/48/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking
up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and in
particular: Article 68(2), Article 72, Article 73(3), Article 74,
Articles 99, 100 and 101, Articles 110 to 114, Articles 118
and 119, Articles 124 to 127, Articles 129 to 132,
Article 133, Article 136, Articles 144 and 145, Article 149,
Article 152, Article 154(1), Article 155, Annex V, Annex VI
(except part I), Annex VII to XII (except Annex X parts I, II
and III), and in any event, by failing to communicate those
provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/48/EC
into national law expired on 31 December 2006.

(1) OJ 2006 L 177, p. 1.

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C. Meerts

Respondent: Proost NV

Question referred

Are clauses 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement
on parental
leave concluded on 14 December 1995 by the
general cross-industry organisations UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC
which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June
1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded
by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to be interpreted as meaning
that, where an employer unilaterally terminates an employment
contract without urgent cause or without compliance with the
statutory period of notice at a time when the worker is availing
the
himself of arrangements
payment in lieu of notice that is due to the worker must be
determined by reference to the base salary calculated as if the
worker had not reduced his working hours as a form of parental
leave in accordance with clause [2].3(a) of the framework agree-
ment?

reduced working hours,

for

(1) OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Transportes
Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL v Administración del
Estado

(Case C-118/08)

(2008/C 128/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/25

Parties to the main proceedings

maintenance and development programme in the form of the
tax which has been described earlier in this order?

Applicant: Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Question referred

the Tribunal Supremo of

Is it contrary to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness
the
to apply differing case-law of
Kingdom of Spain in the judgments of 29 January 2004 and
24 May 2005 to actions for financial liability against the State
qua legislature in respect of administrative acts adopted pursuant
to a law which has been declared unconstitutional and to such
actions in respect of administrative acts adopted pursuant to a
measure which has been held to be contrary to Community
law?

(1) First Council Directive of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of
legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English
Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

(2) Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
taxes —
the laws of
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 45, p. 1).

the Member States relating to turnover

Action brought on 31 March 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-130/08)

(2008/C 128/46)

Language of the case: Greek

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on
18 March 2008 — Mechel Nemunas UAB v Valstybinė
mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų
ministerijos

(Case C-119/08)

(2008/C 128/45)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Kontou-Durande)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Form of order sought

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Adminis-
trative Court of Lithuania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Mechel Nemunas UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respu-
blikos finansų ministerijos (State Tax Inspectorate attached to
the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania)

Question referred

Are First Council Directive 67/227/EEC (1) and/or Article 33 of
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (2)
to be interpreted as
having prohibited a Member State from maintaining, and
levying, deductions from income in accordance with the Law
the road
of

the Republic of Lithuania on the financing of

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary to ensure, in every case,
the merits of applications for asylum of
examination of
third-country
accordance with
in
nationals who,
Article 16(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003, are trans-
ferred to Greece so as to be taken back for examination of
their applications, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 343/2003;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees drew
the Commission's attention to the question whether Greek
legislation relating to the procedure for recognising foreign
nationals
compatible with Regulation
No 343/2003 in cases where the foreign national arbitrarily
has left the country and a decision discontinuing the proce-
dure for consideration of asylum has been made in his
regard.

refugees

as

is

2. This problem results from Article 2(8) of Presidential Decree
No 61/99 (FEK (Official Gazette) A 63) of 6 April 1999,
which concerns discontinuance of the procedure for consid-
arbitrary
eration

provision

asylum.

treats

That

of