Case C-471/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (Finland) lodged on 4 November 2008 — Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj
Date: 2008-11-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, interpretation of the law, motherhood, remuneration of work

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/13

4. If a Member State adopts a private copying ‘levy’ system, is
the indiscriminate application of that ‘levy’ to undertakings
and professional persons who clearly purchase digital repro-
duction devices and media for purposes other than private
copying compatible with the concept of ‘fair compensation’?

5. Might the system adopted by the Spanish State of applying
the private copying levy indiscriminately to all digital repro-
duction equipment, devices and media infringe Directive
2001/29, in so far as there is insufficient correlation between
the fair compensation and the limitation of
the private
copying right justifying it, because to a large extent it is
applied to different situations in which the limitation of
rights justifying the compensation does not exist?

(1) Corrigendum to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain
aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
(OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin
lodged on 4 November 2008 —
käräjäoikeus (Finland)

Sanna Maria Parviainen v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-471/08)

(2009/C 19/22)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin käräjäoikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sanna Maria Parviainen

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Question referred

what kind of allowances and on what basis the worker was paid
in addition to her basic monthly pay?

(1) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduc-
tion of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given
birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the
meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) OJ L 348, 1992,
p. 1.

Appeal brought on 6 November 2008 by Evropaïki
Tilepikoinonion
Dynamiki — Proigmena
Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the
Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on
10 September 2008 in Case T-59/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki —
Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai
European
Tilematikis AE

Systimata

the

of

v Commission
Communities

(Case C-476/08 P)

(2009/C 19/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N.
Korogiannakis, P. Katsimani, Δικηγόροι)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance;

— annul the decision of the Commission (DG Agriculture) to
evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the
contract to the successful contractor;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial
procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as
those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted

Is Article 11(1) of the Protection of Pregnant Workers Direc-
tive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a worker who is trans-
ferred to other lower-paid work because of her pregnancy must,
on the basis of that provision, be paid as much as she received
on average before the transfer, and is it relevant in that respect

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal against the judgment T-59/05 of
the Court of First Instance on the following grounds: