CELEX: 62019CN0034
Language: en
Date: 2019-01-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-34/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

27.5.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/5
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 17 January 2019 — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
      (Case C-34/19)
      (2019/C 182/06)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Referring court
      
      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA
      
         Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  May Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) be interpreted as permitting, including for 1998, the maintenance of an obligation to pay a fee or a charge corresponding (insofar as it is based on the same proportion of turnover) to that which had to be paid under the regime which existed prior to that directive?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  In light of the Court’s judgments of 18 September 2003 in Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 and of 21 February 2008 in Case C-296/06, does Directive 97/13/EC preclude a final national judgment given on the basis of an incorrect interpretation or misconstruction of that directive, with the result that the ruling in that judgment may be disapplied by a different court hearing a dispute which concerns the same substantive legal relationship but is different in that it concerns a demand for payment that is merely ancillary by comparison with that which was the subject of the case which led to the incorrect ruling?
               
            
         (1)  Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorizations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15).