Case C-213/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Michaniki AE v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 24 — Grounds for excluding participation in a contract — National measures establishing an incompatibility between the public works sector and that of the media)
Date: 2008-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, award of contract, interpretation of the law, provision of services, public contract, works contract

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/11

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings
against Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 December
2008 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Michaniki AE v
Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikratias

(Case C-205/07) (1)

(Case C-213/07) (1)

(Articles 28 EC to 30 EC — Directive 97/7/EC — Consumer
protection in distance contracts — Period for withdrawal —
Prohibition on requiring from a consumer an advance or
payment before the end of the period for withdrawal)

(Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 24
— Grounds for excluding participation in a contract —
National measures establishing an incompatibility between the
public works sector and that of the media)

(2009/C 44/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2009/C 44/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties in the main proceedings

Lodewijk Gysbrechts, Santurel Inter BVBA

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michaniki AE

Defendants: Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis, Ipourgos Epikra-
tias

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent
— Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC — Effects on intra-
community trade of a national rule prohibiting a requirement
that a consumer pay an advance or make payment before the
expiry of a withdrawal period — Compatibility with Com-
munity law

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Article 29 EC does not preclude national rules which prohibit a
supplier in cross-border distance selling from requiring an advance or
any payment from a consumer before expiry of the withdrawal period,
but Article 29 EC does preclude a prohibition, under those rules, on
requesting, before expiry of that period, the number of the consumer's
payment card.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

Interveners in support of
Techniki Ependitiki Viomichaniki AE,
Pantechniki AE, Sindesmos Epikhiriseon Periodikou Tipou

the defendants: Elliniki Technodomiki
in law to

successor

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias —
Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of
14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) —
Question of whether or not the list of grounds for excluding a
contractor from participation in the contract is exhaustive

Operative part of the judgment

(1) The first paragraph of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC
of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts, as amended by European
Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October
1997, must be interpreted as listing exhaustively the grounds
based on objective considerations of professional quality which are
capable of justifying the exclusion of a contractor from participa-
tion in a public works contract. However, that directive does not
preclude a Member State from providing for further exclusionary
measures designed to ensure observance of the principles of equal
treatment of
transparency, provided that such
measures do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objec-
tive;

tenderers and of

C 44/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

(2) Community law must be interpreted as precluding a national
provision which, whilst pursuing the legitimate objectives of equal
treatment of tenderers and of transparency in procedures for the
award of public contracts, establishes an irrebuttable presumption
that the status of owner, partner, main shareholder or manage-
ment executive of an undertaking active in the media sector is
incompatible with that of owner, partner, main shareholder or
management executive of an undertaking which contracts with the
State or a legal person in the public sector in the broad sense to
perform a works, supply or services contract.

(1) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour
d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances
v Truck Center SA

(Case C-282/07) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, following amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) — Free movement of
capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Arti-
cles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) — Taxation of legal
persons — Income from capital and movable property —
Retention of tax at source — Withholding tax — Charging of
withholding tax on interest paid to non-resident companies —
No charging of withholding tax on interest paid to resident
companies — Double taxation convention — Restriction —
None)

(2009/C 44/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge — SPF Finances

Respondent: Truck Center SA

Re:

tion of withholding tax where that income is allocated to a
company established in the same Member State — Unjustified
difference in treatment or difference in situation justifying
in that respect, of a bilateral
different
convention for the avoidance of double taxation

treatment? — Effect,

Operative part of the judgment

(now,

following

the EC Treaty

Articles 52 of
amendment,
Article 43 EC), 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC), 73b of the
EC Treaty and 73d of the Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC
respectively) must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a
Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which
provides for the retention of
tax at source on interest paid by a
company resident in that Member State to a recipient company resident
in another Member State, while exempting from that retention interest
paid to a recipient company resident in the first Member State, the
income of which is taxed in that Member State by way of corporation
tax.

(1) OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Italian Republic

(Case C-283/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
75/442/EEC — Article 1 — Concept of waste — Scrap
intended for use in iron and steel activities — High-quality
refuse-derived fuel — Incorrect transposition)

(2009/C 44/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by C. Zadra and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by I. Braguglia, acting as
Agent, and G. Fiengo, Avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Liège —
Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Free movement
legal persons — Withholding tax
of capital — Taxation of
deducted by the tax authorities of one Member State on income
from capital allocated by a company established in that State to
a company established in another Member State — No deduc-

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Direc-
tive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) —
Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and scrap intended for use in iron and
steel and metallurgical activities — Exclusion from the scope of
the national transposition law