Case C-192/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 8 May 2008 — TeliaSonera Finland Oyj
Date: 2008-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, electronic mail, interpretation of the law, multimedia, systems interconnection, telecommunications, transmission network

C 197/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

— transposed the provisions of Article 10 of the Directive. The
Commission considers that
the disposal of waste waters
through septic tanks or other individual systems will almost
to a disposal operation for
always in practice amount
purposes of the Directive. However, it is conceivable that, in
some circumstances, an argument might be made for
considering the treatment method to be a recovery opera-
tion. This might be
for dry
composting of domestic waste waters with a view to their
subsequent use as a fertilizer. Accordingly, the Commission
has included Article 10 in the present Application.

for example,

case,

the

— transposed the provisions of Article 11 of the Directive.
Ireland does not claim, for purposes of Article 11(3) or
otherwise, to have transposed the provisions of Article 11
of the Directive, but in so far as it may purport to do so, the
Commission would contend that such rules as it has put in
place for septic tanks and other individual treatment systems
do not amount to a transposition of Article 11(1) and (2) of
the Directive. In particular, the rules applicable in Ireland do
not ensure that the conditions imposed in Article 4 of the
Directive are respected. Moreover, there is no system of
registration of septic tanks and other individual treatment
systems.

— transposed the provisions of Article 12 of the Directive.
Article 12 is important in relation to septic tanks and other
individual treatment systems in as much as, to operate effec-
tively; such systems require periodic removal and disposal of
sludges. To the extent that there are professional services
involved in such removal and disposal,
they are not
addressed in Irish law and practice in accordance with the
Directive.

— transposed the provisions of Article 13 of the Directive.
Article 13 is important since, without proper maintenance,
even well-sited and well-installed septic tanks and other indi-
vidual treatment systems can malfunction and cause envir-
onmental harm. A system of inspections is therefore crucial.
The evidence of the Lough Leane study shows that, apart
from failing to transpose the requirements of Article 13 of
the Directive, Ireland fails to respect those requirements in
practice in relation to septic tanks and other individual treat-
ment systems.

— transposed the provisions of Article 14 of the Directive.
Article 14 of the Directive is important in terms of record-
keeping that helps ensure that septic tanks and other indivi-
dual treatment systems do not become overloaded and are
properly maintained. The evidence of the Lough Leane study
shows that, apart from failing to transpose the requirements
of Article 14 of the Directive, Ireland fails to respect those
requirements in practice in relation to septic tanks and other
individual treatment systems.

(1) OJ L 194, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
lodged on 8 May 2008 —
hallinto-oikeus

(Finland)

TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

(Case C-192/08)

(2008/C 197/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: TeliaSonera Finland Oyj

Defendants: Viestintävirasto, iMEZ Ab

Questions referred

and interconnection of,

1. Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/19/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access
to,
communications
networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), when
read in conjunction with recitals 5, 6 and 8 in the preamble
to that directive and with Article 8 and Article 5 thereof, to
be interpreted as meaning that:

electronic

1 (a) national legislation may provide, as in Paragraph 39(1)
of the Finnish Communications Market Law, that any
telecommunications operator has an obligation to
negotiate on interconnection with another telecommu-
nications operator and, if so,

1 (b) a national regulatory authority can take the view that
the obligation to negotiate has not been complied
with where a telecommunications operator which
does not have significant market power has offered
another operator
interconnection under conditions
which the authority regards as wholly unilateral and
likely to hinder the emergence of a competitive market
at the retail level, where they have hindered in practice
the second operator from offering its customers the
opportunity to transmit multimedia messages to end-
users subscribed to the telecommunications operator's
network and, if so,

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/9

the

1 (c) the national regulatory authority can in its decision
require
telecommunications
aforementioned
operator, which therefore does not have significant
market power, to negotiate in good faith on the inter-
connection of text and multi-media communications
services between operators' systems in such a way
that, in commercial negotiations, regard must be had
to the objectives which interconnection seeks
to
achieve and negotiations must be based on the
premiss that the operation of SMS and MMS services
between operators' systems can be made subject to
reasonable conditions so that users have the possibility
of using telecommunications operators' communica-
tions services?

2. Do the nature of iMEZ Ab's network and whether iMEZ Ab
should be regarded as a public electronic communications
networks operator have any bearing on the assessment of
the questions set out above?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.

3. Does this apply,

in any event, where a Member State
decides on a system of continuation of ‘pay’ which in
principle encompasses total income, with the exception,
however, of so-called ‘extra emoluments’ based on tasks
performed (contingent on performance of those tasks) (as
listed in Paragraph 15 of the [Austrian] Law on salaries
(Gehaltsgesetz,
‘GehG’) 1956), such as the allowance for
on-call duty at issue here?

2. If the aforementioned provisions do not have direct effect,
are they to be transposed by the Member States in such a
way that a woman worker who is not permitted to render
on-call duties during periods in which expectant mothers are
prohibited from working and/or during maternity leave is
entitled to continue to be paid an allowance for such
services?

(1) OJ L 348, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 9 May 2005 — Dr. Susanne
Gassmayr v Bundesministerin für Wissenschaft und
Forschung

(Case C-194/08)

(2008/C 197/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr Susanne Gassmayr

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia (Italy)
lodged on
14 May 2008 — Acoset SpA v Conferenza Sindaci e
Presidenza Prov.Reg.ATO Idrico Ragusa and Others

(Case C-196/08)

(2008/C 197/14)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Sicilia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Acoset SpA

Defendants: Conferenza Sindaci e Presidenza Prov.Reg.ATO
Idrico Ragusa and Others

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Wissenschaft und Forschung

Question referred

Questions referred

1. 1. Does Article 11(1),

(2) and (3) of Council Directive
92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
health at work of pregnant workers and workers who
have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (1) (OJ 1992
L 348, p. 1) have direct effect?

2. If those provisions do have direct effect are they to be
construed as meaning that there is a continued entitle-
ment to payment of an allowance for on-call duty during
periods in which expectant mothers are prohibited from
working and/or during maternity leave?

Is the model of a semi-public company formed specifically to
provide a particular public service of industrial importance and
possessing a single corporate purpose, to which that service is
awarded directly, the private ‘industrial’ and ‘operational’ partici-
pant in the company being selected by means of a public and
open procedure, after verification of the financial and technical
requirements and of the operating and managerial requirements
specific to the service to be performed and the specific services
to be provided, consistent with Community law and in particu-
lar with the obligations of transparency and free competition
referred to in Articles 43, 49 and 86 of the Treaty?