Case C-325/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 17 July 2008 — Olympique Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC
Date: 2008-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, damages, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, professional sport, vocational training, work contract

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/9

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Krzysztof Filipiak

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

Questions referred

1. Must Article 43(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the
provisions of Polish national law in Article 26(1)(2) of the
ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizychznych (Law
on income tax payable by natural persons) of 26 July 1991
…, under which the right to a reduction of the basis of
assessment for income tax by the amount of compulsory
social insurance contributions is restricted to contributions
paid on the basis of provisions of national
law, and in
Article 27b(1) of the Law of 26 July 1991 on income tax
payable by natural persons, under which the right to a reduc-
tion of income tax by the amount of compulsory health
insurance contributions is restricted to contributions paid on
the basis of provisions of national law, in the case where a
Polish national, subject to unlimited liability to tax in Poland
on income taxed there, also pays in another Member State
compulsory social and health insurance contributions in
respect of an economic activity carried on in that other State,
and those contributions have not been deducted from
income or from tax there?

precedence

2. Must the principle of the primacy of Community law and
Article 10 and Article 43(1) and (2) EC be construed as
in
taking
provisions
the
the
Article 91(2) and (3) and Article 190(1) and (3) of
Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. (Journal of
Laws) 1997 No 14, heading 176, as amended) in so far as
the entry into force of a judgment of the Constitutional
Court has been deferred on the basis of those provisions?

national

over

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation (France) lodged on 17 July 2008 — Olympique
Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

(Case C-325/08)

(2008/C 247/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olympique Lyonnais

Defendants: Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

Questions referred

1. Does the principle of the freedom of movement for workers
laid down in [Article 39 EC] preclude a provision of national

law pursuant to which an espoir player who at the end of his
training period signs a professional player's contract with a
club of another Member State of the European Union may
be ordered to pay damages?

2. If so, does the need to encourage the recruitment and
training of young professional players constitute a legitimate
objective or an overriding reason in the general
interest
capable of justifying such a restriction?

Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-350/08)

(2008/C 247/16)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Steiblytė and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Lithuania

Form of order sought

— declare that, by retaining in force the national authorisation
for the marketing of the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’, the
its obligations
Republic of Lithuania has failed to meet
under Article 6(1) of and Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to
Directive
by Directive
as
2003/63/EC (2), under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC)
No 2309/93 (3) and under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 726/2004 (4);

2001/83/EC (1),

amended

— order the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(i) The Republic of Lithuania is required, under Article 6(1) of
Directive 2001/83/EC,
to examine whether marketing
authorisations issued prior to accession comply with the
requirements of the Community legislation on pharmaceu-
tical products in force at the time of accession and, as from
1 May 2004, to ensure that only medicinal products the
authorisations for which comply with those requirements
are placed on the market.

(ii) The medicinal product

is not mentioned in
‘Grasalva’
Appendix A to Annex IX to the 2003 Act of Accession and
for that reason the provisions relating to the transitional
period cannot be applied to it and, as from 1 May 2004,
this medicinal product could be marketed only if
it
complied with all of the Community-law requirements in
force for similar biological medicinal products with regard