This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009CA0492
Case C-492/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Società Agricola Esposito Srl v Agnezia delle Entrate — Ufficio Taranto 2
Case C-492/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Società Agricola Esposito Srl v Agnezia delle Entrate — Ufficio Taranto 2
Case C-492/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Società Agricola Esposito Srl v Agnezia delle Entrate — Ufficio Taranto 2
OJ C 24, 30.1.2010, p. 43–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.1.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 24/43 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 30 November 2009 — Società Agricola Esposito Srl v Agnezia delle Entrate — Ufficio Taranto 2
(Case C-492/09)
2010/C 24/75
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
The Commissione tributaria provinciale di Taranto
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Società Agricola Esposito Srl
Defendant: Agnezia delle Entrate — Ufficio Taranto 2
Questions referred
|
1. |
In so far as they require a licence to be obtained by a consumer who has concluded a subscription contract, are Article 21 of the Tariff annexed to Presidential Decree No 641/1972 and Article 160 of Legislative Decree No 259/2003 compatible with the rules laid down in Directive 2002/20/EC (1), which, by contrast, refers to individual licences to be obtained by undertakings providing the services or the networks? |
|
2. |
Are Articles 1 and 9 of Presidential Decree No 641/1972 and Article 21 of the Tariff annexed thereto at variance with the rule that there must be individual justification for each charge levied in connection with any authorisation which emerges from an interpretation of Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC? |
|
3. |
Is the fact that the Italian Tassa di Concessione Governativa is payable by persons who have concluded a subscription contract but not by persons who use rechargeable cards compatible with the principles set out in Directive 2002/21/EC (2), in particular ‘the principle of non-discrimination in the allocation and assignment of radio frequencies by national regulatory authorities’ laid down in Article 9(1) of the directive? |
|
4. |
Is the Tassa di Concessione Governativa compatible with the principles set out in Directive 2002/77/EC (3) and Directive 2002/21/EC, which provide that ‘any national scheme …, serving to share the net cost of the provision of universal service obligations shall be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria and shall be consistent with the principles of proportionality and of least market distortion’? |
|
5. |
By increasing the costs for users of mobile telephone services who have concluded subscription contracts, does the Italian Tassa di Concessione Governativa deter entry to the Italian market, thereby prohibiting, to the prejudice of consumers, the formation of a competitive market, in breach of the principles laid down in Directive 2002/21/EC? |
|
6. |
Does the Tassa di Concessione Governative infringe the principle laid down in Article 25 of the Treaty, which provides that ‘[c]ustoms duties on imports and exports and charges having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States. This prohibition shall also apply to customs duties of a fiscal nature’? |