Case C-172/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2008 — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio
Date: 2008-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, commercial law, debt, indemnification, interpretation of the law, payment, trading operation

C 183/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Prosecutor: Staatsanwaltschaft b.d. LG Gießen

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 25 April
2008 — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio

Defendant: Guido Weber

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive
89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of food-
stuffs (1) to be interpreted, with regard to the expression ‘those
subject to inspection’, as applying not only to the manufacturer
of the foodstuff but also to the person marketing it, to the
extent that the latter is to be held responsible by the prosecuting
authorities for the condition and labelling of the foodstuff in
proceedings relating to the imposition of criminal penalties or
administrative fines?

(1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België lodged on 21 April 2008 — Draka NK
Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and
Parc Healthcare International Limited v Omnipol Ltd

(Case C-167/08)

(2008/C 183/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO
Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited

Defendant: Omnipol Ltd

Question referred

Is a creditor who pursues a claim in the name and for the
a party within the meaning of
account of his debtor
Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1), that is, a party who
can lodge an appeal against a decision on the request
for
declaration of enforceability, even if he has not
formally
appeared as a party in the proceedings in which another creditor
of that debtor applied for that declaration?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(Case C-172/08)

(2008/C 183/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pontina Ambiente Srl

Defendant: Regione Lazio

Question referred

in particular,

Is Article 3(26) and (31) of Law No 549/95 incompatible with
Articles 12, 14, 43 and 46 of the EEC Treaty and with Direc-
tives 35/2000/EC (1) and 31/1999/EC (2), with reference in par-
ticular to the principles laid down in the preamble to Directive
35/2000/EC and Article 10 of Directive 31/1999/EC, according
the Member States are required to
to which,
the Community
prevent situations of
inequality throughout
market by adopting provisions to combat
late payments in
order to prohibit abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvan-
tage of the creditor where the principal purpose of a contract is
to procure the debtor additional liquidity at the expense of the
creditor and by making provision for compensation for the loss
suffered by the creditor in the event of late payment by the
debtor?

(1) OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.
(2) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
lodged on 25 April
2008 — Kloosterboer Services B.V. v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid

(Case C-173/08)

(2008/C 183/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (The Netherlands)