Case C-320/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA
Date: 2008-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, telecommunications, transmission network, universal service

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.