C 226/20 EN 7.8.1999 Official Journal of the European Communities
Q u e s t i o n 3 : The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Does Community law impose requirements as to how Member
European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of States should define the expressions ‘damage caused by death
29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and or by personal injuries’ and ‘damage to, or destruction of, any
89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives item of property’ in Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC
73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life of 25 July 1985, or are individual Member States free to decide
insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the what meaning is to be attached to those expressions?
field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field ofundertakings for collective investment in transferable
Question 4: securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
supervision, (
1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
Must Article 9(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ 2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
which, at the time when the damage occurred, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
Pleas in law and main arguments certain other person’s body is covered by the expression
‘damage caused by ... personal injuries’ in relation to the
intended recipient of the organ? The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2) the period prescribed in Article
6 of the directive expired on 18 July 1996.
Question 5:
(1) OJ 1995 L 168, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 264, p. 28.
Must Article 9(b) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ
which, at the time when the damage was occasioned, had beenremoved from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into acertain other person’s body is covered by the expression‘damage to, or destruction of, any item of property’ in relationto the intended recipient of the organ? Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributa ´rio de 1
a
Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April
1999 in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de Informaça ˜o
(1) On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrativeS.A. v Direcça ˜o Geral dos Registos e Notariadoprovisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).(Case C-206/99)
(1999/C 226/33)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the First Chamber of theFirst Division of the Tribunal Tributa ´rio de 1
aInstância do
Porto (Tax Court of First Instance, Oporto) of 16 April 1999,which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia deAction brought on 27 May 1999 by the Commission ofInformaça ˜o S.A. v Direcça ˜o Geral dos Registos e Notariadothe European Communities against the Grand Duchy of(Directorate General of Registries and of the Notariat), on theLuxembourgfollowing questions:
1. May the fees paid for the services of the Directorate General(Case C-204/99)of Registries and of the Notariat be calculated and collected
by reference to the amount to which the document relates?
(1999/C 226/32)
(a) May that amount be unlimited?
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was (b) May that amount be calculated in the manner to which
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi- Question 1relates if there is an upper limit?
ties on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal 2. In compliance with Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (
1) must Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office the court of the Member State reduce the amount payable
in accordance with the upper limit laid down in national of Carlos Go ´mez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg. legislation after the action was taken?
7.8.1999 EN C 226/21 Official Journal of the European Communities
3. Must the fees paid for such services be calculated in the — C(1999)544, which withdraws the assistance granted
light of the cost involved in providing the service? to Floreurop - Productos Florestais Lda by Commission
Decision C(96)2211 of 13 September 1996 concern-ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-4. Are such costs those incurred in taking the action and inbution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88maintaining the facilities necessary for taking it?for project No 94.PT.06.015, entitled ‘Demonstration
Project to accelerate agricultural diversification inMadeira by introducing products intended for the 5. May the criterion of the economic benefit which the user
uharmaceutical industry (tea tree oil)’ obtains from the action taken be applied in calculating the
amount payable for such action?
to the extent to which they are addressed to the Portuguese
Republic;
(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas and principal arguments
— Breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 253 EC);
— Infringement of Article 23(1) third indent and Article 24
of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) in that, on a correctAction brought on 1 June 1999 by the Portugueseinterpretation and application of those provisions to theRepublic against the Commission of the European Com-projects in question, only the beneficiary undertakingsmunitiesshould be responsible for repaying the amounts received:
the assistance in question was granted and controlled
directly and solely by the European Commission without(Case C-208/99)any involvement of the national management and moni-
toring bodies. Nor can the fact that the national authoritiessimply accompanied the Commission inspectors be regard-(1999/C 226/34)ed as participation in the control process. The Member
State cannot be held responsible for irregularities arising
in the implementation of such projects nor can it be theAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-addressee of decisions requiring the recovery of funds usedties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 June 1999improperly.by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Luı ´s Fernandes,
Angelo Seiça Neves and Paula Fraga ˜o, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese
Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer, Luxembourg.(1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 394 of 31.12.1988, p. 14.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Uphold this application and therefore annul the following
decisions:
— C(1999)543, which withdraws the assistance granted
to Belgravia Lda b, Commission Decision C(93)3403of 26 November 1993 concerning the grant of anAction brought on 4 June 1999 by the Commission of theEAGGF, Guarantee Section, contribution underEuropean Communities against the Italian RepublicCouncil Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (
1) for project
No 93.PT.06.023, entitled ‘Demonstration Project forintroduction of the cultivation of sea kale’,(Case C-212/99)
— C(1999)545, which withdraws the assistance granted(1999/C 226/35)to Ordinal-Gesta ˜o de Investimentos Lda by Com-
mission Decision C(93)1606 of 21 June 1993 concern-ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri- An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 1999 bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88
for project No 93.PT.06.002, entitled ‘Pilot and Dem- by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Enrico Traversa, Legal Advisers acting onstration Project for turning to account three Mediter-
ranean plants (fennel, balm and parsley) through the as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of Carlos Go ´mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. extraction of essential oils for the agro-food industry’,