Case C-389/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 8 September 2008 — Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad, other party: Belgacom NV
Date: 2008-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU Member State, costing, disclosure of information, electronic mail, interpretation of the law

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/27

3. May the customs authority of the country of importation
refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment for the
following reason alone, namely that, pursuant to its request
for verification under Article 32(2) of Protocol 4 to the
EMA, it was confirmed by the Israeli authorities (only) that
the goods were manufactured in an area which is subject to
Israeli customs jurisdiction and that
that
reason of Israeli origin, and where the subsequent request by
importation for
the customs authority of
further specification by the Israeli authorities remained unan-
swered, in particular without the actual origin of the goods
having to be taken into account?

the country of

they were for

If Question 3 is to be answered in the negative:

4. May the customs authority refuse automatically to grant
preferential treatment under the EMA in the case where —
as has become clear in the meantime — the goods originate
in the West Bank, or should preferential treatment also be
granted under the EMA for goods originating in that area, in
any event as long as no dispute-settlement procedure has
been carried out under Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA
concerning the interpretation of the expression ‘territory of
the State of Israel’ used in the EMA?

(1) OJ 2000 L 147, p. 3.
(2) OJ 1997 L 187, p. 3.

Question referred

Can Article 12 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service
and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks
and services (Universal Service Directive) (1) be interpreted as
allowing the competent legislature of a Member State, acting in
the capacity of the national regulatory authority, to determine
generally and on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of
the universal service provider — previously the sole provider —
that the provision of universal service may represent an ‘unfair
burden’ for those undertakings designated as universal service
providers?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-390/08)

(2008/C 285/45)

Language of the case: French

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk
Hof (Belgium) lodged on 8 September 2008 — Base NV,
Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet International
NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV v Ministerraad,
other party: Belgacom NV

Parties

(Case C-389/08)

(2008/C 285/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Base NV, Euphony Benelux NV, Mobistar NV, Uninet
International NV, T2 Belgium NV and KPN Belgium NV

Defendant: Ministerraad

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— Declare that by failing to communicate the information
required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February
2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community
greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto
Protocol (1), read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10
and 11 of Commission Decision No 166/2005/EC of
10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision
No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council concerning a mechanism for monitoring Com-
munity greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the
Kyoto Protocol (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Decision
No 280/2004/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10
and 11 of Decision No 166/2005/EC;

Other Party: Belgacom NV

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.