Case C-318/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Filomena Califano v Wind SpA
Date: 2008-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, telecommunications, transmission network, universal service

C 236/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.9.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras

Applicant: Rosalba Alassini

Defendants: Deutscher Luftpool, Luxair SA (a Luxembourg airline
company), European Communities, State of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA

Questions referred

1. Does the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw
on 12 October 1929, as amended at The Hague on
(EC)
28
No 2027/97 (1) refers, form part of the rules of the Com-
munity legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction
to interpret under Article 234 EC?

to which

Regulation

September

1955,

2. Must Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October
1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, in the
version applicable at
the accident, namely
the time of
21 December 1998, be interpreted as meaning that, with
regard to issues for which no express provision is made, the
provisions of the Warsaw Convention, in this case Article 29,
continue to apply to a flight between Member States of the
Community?

3. If the answer to the first and second questions is in the affir-
mative, is Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention, in conjunc-
tion with Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, to be interpreted as
meaning that the period of two years laid down in that
article can be suspended or interrupted or that the carrier or
its insurer can waive that time-limit, by an act deemed by
the national court to constitute recognition of liability?

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Conven-
tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2),
Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive
1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted
as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications
between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the
rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down
in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms
and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of
Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must
not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation
without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought
before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid
down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

(1) OJ L 108, p. 51.
(2) OJ L 171, p. 12.
(3) Commission Recommendation.
(4) Commission Recommendation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air

carrier liability in the event of accidents (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di
Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Filomena
Califano v Wind SpA

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di
Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Rosalba
Alassini v Telecom Italia SpA

(Case C-317/08)

(2008/C 236/15)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-318/08)

(2008/C 236/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Applicant: Filomena Califano

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Defendant: Wind SpA

13.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/11

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Conven-
tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2),
Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive
1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted
as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications
between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the
rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down
in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms
and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of
Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must
not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation
without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought
before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid
down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

(1) OJ L 108, p. 51.
(2) OJ L 171, p. 12.
(3) Commission Recommendation.
(4) Commission Recommendation.

not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation
without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought
before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid
down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

(1) OJ L 108, p. 51.
(2) OJ L 171, p. 12.
(3) Commission Recommendation.
(4) Commission Recommendation.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di
lodged on 15 July 2008 —
Pace di

Ischia
Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA

(Italy)

(Case C-320/08)

(2008/C 236/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di
Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Lucia Anna
Giorgia Iacono v Telecom Italia SpA

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

(Case C-319/08)

(2008/C 236/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Ischia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Conven-
tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2),
Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive
1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted
as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications
between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the
rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down
in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms
and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of
Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Multiservice Srl

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA

Question referred

Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Conven-
tion for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free-
doms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2),
Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive
1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted
as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications
between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the
rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down
in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms
and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of
Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must
not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation
without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought
before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid
down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

(1) OJ L 108, p. 51.
(2) OJ L 171, p. 12.
(3) Commission Recommendation.
(4) Commission Recommendation.