Case C-283/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (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)
Date: 2008-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Community, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fuel, iron and steel industry, waste recycling

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

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/13

Operative part of the judgment

Parties to the main proceedings

The Court:

Applicant: Ruben Andersen

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions such

as

— Article 1(25)

to (27) and (29)(a) of Law No 308 of
15 December 2004 delegating power to the government to
reform, coordinate and supplement legislation in environmental
matters and direct implementation measures, and

— Article 1(29)(b) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 and
Articles 183(1)(s) and 229(2) of Legislative Decree No 152
of 3 April 2006 laying down rules in environmental matters,

and

activities

legislation

high-quality

under which certain scrap intended for use in iron and steel and
metallurgical
fuel
(RDF-Q) respectively are excluded a priori from the scope of the
transposing Council Directive
Italian
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of that direc-
tive;

refuse-derived

on waste

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December
a preliminary ruling from the
2008 (reference
Højesteret — Denmark) — Ruben Andersen
v
Kommunernes Landsforening, acting on behalf of Slagelse
Kommune (formerly Skælskør Kommune)

for

(Case C-306/07) (1)

(Information to be provided to employees — Directive
91/533/EEC — Article 8(1) and (2) — Scope — Employees
‘covered’ by a collective agreement — Concept of ‘temporary
contract or employment relationship’)

(2009/C 44/21)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Defendant: Kommunernes Landsforening, acting on behalf of
Slagelse Kommune (formerly Skælskør Kommune)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpreta-
tion of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of
14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform
employees of
the conditions applicable to the contract or
employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32) — Applic-
ability of a collective agreement intended to transpose a directive
to an employee who is not a member of one of the organisa-
tions which are party to that agreement — Rights of employees
who believe themselves to be harmed by the failure to comply
with the obligations under the directive

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(1) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October
1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of
the
conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship
must be interpreted as meaning that it does not prohibit national
rules which provide that the terms of a collective agreement which
is intended to transpose the provisions of the directive into national
law are to apply to an employee even though he is not a member of
an organisation which is a party to that agreement.;

2. The second paragraph of Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/533
must be interpreted as meaning that
it does not prevent an
employee who is not a member of a union which is a party to a
collective agreement governing his employment relationship being
regarded as ‘covered by’ that agreement within the meaning of the
abovementioned provision.

3. The words ‘a temporary contract or employment relationship’ in the
second paragraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/533 are to be
interpreted as referring to contracts and employment relationships
entered into for a short period. If no norm has been laid down for
that purpose in a Member State's rules, it is for the national courts
to determine the duration in each case in the light of the specific
characteristics of certain sectors or certain occupations or activities.
That duration must, however, be fixed so as to provide effective
protection of the rights conferred on workers by the directive.

(1) OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.