Case C-377/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008 — EGN B.V. — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2008-08-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Italy, VAT, import, interpretation of the law, provision of services, telecommunications

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/25

Appeal brought on 14 August 2008 by Atlantic Dawn Ltd,
Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing
Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard
Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing
Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean
Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd,
Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely,
Thomas Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille
Fishing Ltd against the order of the Court of First Instance
(Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2008 in Case
T-172/07 Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd,
Atlantean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle
Fishing Co. Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea
Fishing Co. Ltd, Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd,
Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd, Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen
Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd, Bradan Fishing
Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas Flaherty,
Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-372/08 P)

(2008/C 285/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Atlantic Dawn Ltd, Antarctic Fishing Co. Ltd, Atlan-
tean Ltd, Killybegs Fishing Enterprises Ltd, Doyle Fishing Co.
Ltd, Western Seaboard Fishing Co. Ltd, O'Shea Fishing Co. Ltd,
Aine Fishing Co. Ltd, Brendelen Ltd, Cavankee Fishing Co. Ltd,
Ocean Trawlers Ltd, Eileen Oglesby, Noel McGing, Mullglen Ltd,
Bradan Fishing Co. Ltd, Larry Murphy, Pauric Conneely, Thomas
Flaherty, Carmarose Trawling Co. Ltd, Colmcille Fishing Ltd
(represented by: G. Hogan SC, N. Travers BL, T. O'Sullivan BL,
D. Barry, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

appellants submit that the Court of First Instance has, firstly,
misconstrued Article 20 of Regulation No 2371/2002 (1) and,
in particular, the scope of the residual powers of Member States
it has misconstrued
thereof. Secondly,
under Article 20(3)
Article 20(5) in relying upon the possibility of inter-Member
State quota exchanges to exclude direct concern for the appel-
lants. Lastly, it has erroneously ignored the fact that the appel-
lants are directly concerned, as a closed group of individuals, by
the contested regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on
the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358, p. 59).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 18 August 2008
— EGN B.V. — Filiale Italiana v Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-377/08)

(2008/C 285/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EGN B.V. — Filiale Italiana

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Question referred

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in its

entirety;

— remit the case to the Court of First Instance for judgment on
the substance of the application, the balance of the objection
of inadmissibility of the Commission of 7 September 2007
to be reserved for the said decision on the merits;

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the

appellants in respect of this appeal.

Is it permissible under Article 17(3)(a) of Council Directive
77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, in cases involving the supply
of telecommunications services between taxable persons resi-
dent in different Member States of the Community and where
the recipient is liable to value added tax, for the supplier to
deduct the tax payable on the acquisition or importation of
goods connected with such transactions which that supplier
would be entitled to deduct if he provided the same services
within his own country?

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

The appellants base this appeal on three alleged infringements
of Community law made in the order under appeal. The