Case C-498/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2008-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), appeal, disclosure of information, fundamental rights

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

Parties to the main proceedings

Form of order sought

Applicant: Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV

Other Party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred

1. Must Article 13B(g) in conjunction with Article 4(3)(a) of the
Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that
tax is
charged on the supply of a building which has been partly
demolished with a view to the replacement of that building
with a newly constructed building?

2. Is it relevant to the answer to that question whether it is the
vendor or the purchaser of the building who has given the
order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof, and
thus the supply is taxed only if the vendor has given the
order for demolition and is charged the cost thereof?

3. Is it relevant to the answer to the first question whether it is
the vendor or the purchaser of the building who has drawn
up the plans for the new building, and thus the supply is
taxed only if the vendor has drawn up the plans for the new
building?

4. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is tax
then levied on any supply occurring after the date on which
the demolition work actually begins or after a later date,
especially the date on which the demolition has made
substantial progress?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

— declare that, by failing to adopt, in full, the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of
professional qualifications (1), or, as the case may be, by
failing to fully inform the Commission of those provisions,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under that directive;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on
20 October 2007.

(1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Fornaci Laterizi
Danesi SpA against the judgment delivered on 9 September
2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-498/08 P)

(2009/C 69/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Action brought on 6 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Austria

Parties

(Case C-477/08)

(2009/C 69/30)

Appellant: Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA (represented by: M. Salvi,
L. de Nora, M. Manganiello, P. Rivetta, lawyers)

Language of the case: German

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

— Set aside the order of 9 September 2008 of the Court of
First
in Case T-224/08, notified by fax of
12 September 2008 and refer the case back to the Court of
First Instance for judgment on the merits;

Instance

C 69/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.3.2009

— In the alternative, in the event that the case is not referred
back to the Court of First Instance, uphold the forms of
order sought by the applicant at first instance;

— In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

legal assumptions,

Incorrect
incorrect reasons for judgment,
incorrect application of the legal rule in question, failure to
make inquiries (fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, Article 249 EC
and Article 254 EC, also in relation to Article 6 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
mental Freedoms).

2. If

the first question is answered in the affirmative,

is a
national regulatory authority competent, in the light of Com-
munity law, to monitor compliance with the prohibition laid
down in Article 57(1)(1) of the Ustawa — Prawo Telekomu-
nikacyjne (Polish Law on Telecommunications) of 16 July
2004 (Dziennik Ustaw No 171, item 1800, as amended)?

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, pp. 7-20.
(2) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, pp. 21-32.
(3) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, pp. 33-50.
(4) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, pp. 51-77.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd
on
Administracyjny
28 November 2008 — Telekomunikacja Polska S.A.,
the Urząd Komunikacji
Warsaw,

(Republic

President

Poland)

lodged

of

of

v

Elektronicznej

(Case C-522/08)

(2009/C 69/32)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Telekomunikacja Polska S.A., Warsaw

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
lodged on 4 December 2008 —
Gerichtshof
Zeitschriftenverlag
Mediaprint

Zeitungs-

(Austria)

und

GmbH & Co KG v ‘Österreich’-Zeitungsverlag GmbH

(Case C-540/08)

(2009/C 69/33)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH
& Co KG

Defendant: President of the Urząd Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Defendant:‘Österreich’-Zeitungsverlag GmbH

Questions referred

Questions referred

1. Does Community law permit the Member States to introduce
a prohibition, directed at all undertakings providing telecom-
munication services, on making the conclusion of a service-
provision contract contingent on the purchase of another
service (combined sale) and, in particular, does a measure of
this kind go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives
of
the directives contained in the telecommunications
package (Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and inter-
connection of, electronic communications networks and
associated facilities (1); Directive 2002/20/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the
authorisation of electronic communications networks and
services (2); Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common
regulatory
communications
networks and services (3); and Directive 2002/22/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002
on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic
communications networks and services (4))?

framework

electronic

for

1. Do Articles 3(1) and 5(5) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005
concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial prac-
tices in the internal market and amending Council Directive
84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regu-
lation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and
of the Council (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) (1) or
other provisions of that Directive preclude a national provi-
sion which makes it
to announce, offer or give
bonuses, free of charge, with periodicals and newspapers,
and to announce bonuses, free of charge, with other goods
or services, apart
from exhaustively specified exceptions,
without it being necessary in any particular case to consider
whether such a commercial practice is misleading, aggressive
or otherwise unfair, even where that provision serves not
only to protect consumers, but also serves other purposes
which are not covered by the material scope of the Directive,
for example,
the maintenance of media diversity or the
protection of weaker competitors?

illegal