Cases C-88/01, C-89/01 and C-90/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia, by orders of that court of 20 January 2001, in the cases of (1) Agricola Torriani Sas; (2) Finanziaria Immobiliare Perugino SpA and (3) San Marco SpA v Ministero delle Finanze
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, indirect tax, interest, interpretation of the law, limited partnership, redemption

C 118/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Brescia, by orders of that court of 20 January 2001, in
the cases of (1) Agricola Torriani Sas; (2) Finanziaria
Immobiliare Perugino SpA and (3) San Marco SpA v
Ministero delle Finanze

(Cases C-88/01, C-89/01 and C-90/01)

(2001/C 118/28)

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 20 anuary 2001, received
at the Court Registry on 21 February 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of (1) Agricola Torriani Sas; (2) Finanziaria
Immobiliare Perugino SpA and (3) San Marco SpA v Ministero
delle Finanze on the following questions:

1.

2.

Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
69/335/EEC (1), inasmuch as it provides that the adminis-
trative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for regis-
tration of ‘other company documents’ for each of the
years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for
private limited companies?

Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with
Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on
the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
that Law entered into force (2.5% per annum) and not
according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
subsequently amended?

(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition
1969 (11), p. 412).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission decision C(2000) 3565 final of
15 November 2000 relating to State aid which Italy
intends to grant to Solar Tech Srl, insofar as it has failed
to apply 15 % GSE (1), provided for small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs), to the aid granted, and order the
Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government submits that, by basing the decision
not to recognise the increment provided for on a definition of
SMEs which fails to take account exclusively of the require-
ments mentioned in the rules for aid to SMEs, the Commission
infringed those rules, which the Court has held to be binding.

The Italian Government further submits that the contested
application of the rules contained in the decision at issue is
also contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and
legal certainty.

(1) GSE = maximum concession in gross subsidy equivalent granted
according to the size of the undertaking and location of the
production unit.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 29 January
2001 in appeal proceedings brought by (1) Gottfried
Linhart and (2) Dr Hans Biffl

(Case C-99/01)

(2001/C 118/30)

Action brought on 21 February 2001 by the Italian
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-91/01)

(2001/C 118/29)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 February 2001 by the Italian Republic,
represented by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Supreme Administrative Court), received at the Court
Registry on 28 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
appeal proceedings brought by (1) Gottfried Linhart and (2)
Dr Hans Biffl, on the following questions:

(1) Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC
of 27 July 1976 (1) on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as
amended
by Council Directives 88/667/EEC of
21 December 1988 (2)
(OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46) and
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (3) (OJ
1993 L 151, p. 32) (hereinafter ‘Directive 76/768’), in