Case C-376/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio Stabile Edile Scrl v Comune di Milano
Date: 2008-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Economic Interest Grouping, Italy, cooperative, craft business, interpretation of the law, legal status

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/7

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Nanterre — Validity of Article 24(2) of Regulation
(EEC) No 1758/81, Article 27(3)
of Regulation (EC)
No 2038/1999, Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000,
Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 and Article 1 of
Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 — Common organisation of
the markets in the sugar sector — Isoglucose production quotas
— (Non)
isoglucose used as an intermediate
product — Validity of Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 and Regu-
lation (EC) No 314/2002 — Method of calculating levies due in
respect of isoglucose production

inclusion of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Treviso (Italy)
lodged on 18 August 2008 — Criminal
proceedings against Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino
Bonora, Giovanni Forato, Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo
Colomberotto

(Case C-375/08)

(2008/C 327/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Operative part of the order

1. Consideration of the first question referred has disclosed no factor of
such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 24(2) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
organization of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 27(3) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2038/1999 of 13 September 1999
on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector,
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2000 of
29 September 2000 reducing, for the 2000/2001 marketing year,
the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the
sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refi-
neries under the preferential import arrangements, Article 11(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, Article 1
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of 30 September
2002 reducing, for the 2002/2003 marketing year, the guaran-
teed quantity under the production quotas scheme for the sugar
sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar refineries
under
import arrangements or Article 1 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of 30 September
2003 reducing, for the 2003/2004 marketing year, the guaran-
teed quantity under the production quotas for the sugar sector and
refineries under
the presumed maximum supply needs of sugar
preferential imports.

the preferential

2. Consideration of the first subparagraph of Article 5(5) of Commis-
sion Regulation (EEC) No 1443/82 of 8 June 1982 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar
sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 392/94 of
23 February 1994, and Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector, as
amended, where appropriate, by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1140/2003 of 27 June 2003 has disclosed no factor of such
a kind as to affect the validity of those provisions.

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

Referring court

Tribunale di Treviso

Parties to the main proceedings

Luigi Pontini, Emanuele Rech, Dino Bonora, Giovanni Forato,
Laura Forato, Adele Adami, Ivo Colomberotto

Question referred

The Tribunale makes a reference to the Court of Justice in order
that the latter may make clear what the conditions are for elig-
ibility for premiums for male bovine animals and, in particular,
whether the requirement of use of forage areas is sufficient, irre-
spective of the existence of any valid legal title to make that use
lawful (1).

(1) OJ L 160, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged
on 18 August 2008 — Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio
Stabile Edile Scrl v Comune di Milano

(Case C-376/08)

(2008/C 327/12)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

C 327/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.12.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Serrantoni Srl and Consorzio Stabile Edile Scrl

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello
di Roma (Italy) lodged on 12 September 2008 — Istituto
nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) v Tiziana Bruno
and Massimo Pettini

Defendant: Comune di Milano

Questions referred

1. Is

the

correct

application of Article 4 of Directive
2004/18/EC (1) of 31 March 2004 impeded by the provi-
sions of national law laid down in Article 36(5) of Legislative
Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, as amended by Legislative
Decree No 113 of 31 July 2007, under which:

(Case C-395/08)

(2008/C 327/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d'appello di Roma

— where a member of a consortium participates in a
tendering procedure for a public contract, the consortium
itself is automatically excluded from participation solely
on the ground that it has a particular legal form (that of
a permanent consortium) rather than another, essentially
identical, legal form (that of a grouping of producers' and
workers' cooperatives or a grouping of artisan/handicraft
businesses); and

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Defendants: Tiziana Bruno and Massimo Pettini

— where

a permanent

consortium participates

in a
tendering procedure for a public contract, and where it
has declared that it is competing on behalf of other
companies and that it will entrust the works to other
companies if it is awarded the contract, a company is
automatically excluded from participation solely on the
formal ground that it is a member of that consortium?

2. Is the correct application of Articles 39, 43, 49 and 81 of
the Treaty establishing the European Community impeded by
the provisions of national law laid down in Article 36(5) of
Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006, as amended by
Legislative Decree No 113 of 31 July 2007, under which:

— where a member of a consortium participates in a
tendering procedure for a public contract, the consortium
itself is automatically excluded from participation solely
on the ground that it has a particular legal form (that of
a permanent consortium) rather than another, essentially
form (a grouping of producers' and
identical,
workers' cooperatives or a grouping of artisan/handicraft
businesses), and

legal

— where

a permanent

consortium participates

in a
tendering procedure for a public contract, and where it
has declared that it is competing on behalf of other
companies and that it will entrust the works to other
companies if it is awarded the contract, a company is
automatically excluded from participation solely on the
formal ground that it is a member of that consortium?

(1) OJ L 134, p. 114.

Questions referred

1. Is

the

Italian State

legislation (Article 7(1) of Law
No 638/83) (1) which results in periods not worked under
‘vertical’ part-time arrangements not being taken into
the
account as periods of qualifying contributions
purpose of acquiring pension rights compatible with Direc-
tive 97/81/EC, and in particular Clause 4 [of the Framework
Agreement] concerning the principle of non-discrimination?

for

2. Are those national provisions compatible with Directive
in particular, Clause 1 [of the Framework
97/81/EC and,
Agreement], which provides that national
legislation must
facilitate the development of part-time work, and Clauses 4
and 5, which provide that the Member States are to eliminate
obstacles of a legal nature which may limit access to part-
time work, since it is unquestionable that the failure to take
into account for pension purposes the weeks not worked
constitutes a significant disincentive to choosing ‘vertical’
part-time working arrangements?

3. Can Clause 4 [of the Framework Agreement] on the prin-
ciple of non-discrimination also be extended to various kinds
of part-time contract, in view of the fact that, in the case of
‘horizontal’ part-time work, where the total number of hours
worked and for which remuneration is paid in the calendar
year is equal, all the weeks of the calendar year are taken
into account under national legislation, whereas they are not
in the case of ‘vertical’ part-time work?

(1) Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the
Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE,
CEEP and the ETUC — Annex: Framework agreement on part-time
work — OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.