Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establishment — Dentists — Residence conditions)
Date: 2001-06-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dentist, freedom to provide services, right of establishment

2.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 161/5

1. Orders Vetroresina Spa (TVR) to pay the Commission of the
European Communities the sum of EUR 77 558,80, together
with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990 until the
debt is paid in full;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Dismisses Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR)’s counterclaim;

4. Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (M) to pay the costs.

1. Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to
the supply of services consisting in making road infrastructure
available to users on payment of a toll, the Kingdom of Spain
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(3)(a) of the
Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 96/95/EC
of 20 December 1996;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.

(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

in Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 18 January 2001

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Application
of a reduced rate to motorway tolls)

in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(2001/C 161/09)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Dı´az-Llanos La Roche and C. Go´ mez de la Cruz) v
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) — application
for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value
added tax to the supply of services consisting in making road
infrastructure available to users, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth
Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 1977, p. 1), as amended by
Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 338,
1996, p. 89) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
Judges; S. Alber,
Jann and L. Sevo´ n,
D.A.O. Edward, P.
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 18 January 2001, in which it:

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establish-
ment — Dentists — Residence conditions)

(2001/C 161/10)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F.P. Ruggen Laderchi and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic
(Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) — application for a
declaration that:

— by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional
Head of State of 13 September 1946, despite amendment
by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November 1991, to
remain in force in such a way as to leave dentists
practising in Italy still subject to a de facto residence
requirement,

C 161/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.6.2001

— by maintaining in force Article 15 in Title IV of Law
No 409 of 24 July 1985, which refers to Article 1 of Law
No 1398 of 14 December 1964, having the effect that
only dentists of Italian nationality may remain registered
as practitioners upon transferring their residence to
another Member State,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that:

— by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional
Head of State of 13 September 1946 on the reconstitution
of the associations of the health-care professions and the
regulation of the practice of those professions, despite
amendment by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November
1991 on the rules for the re-organisation of the pharma-
ceutical sector, to remain in force in such a way as to leave
dentists practising in Italy still subject to a de facto
residence requirement,

— by maintaining in force Article 15 of Law No 409 of
24 July 1985 on the profession of dental surgeon and on
the provisions concerning the right of establishment and the
freedom to provide services of dentists who are nationals of
Member States of the European Communities, which refers
to Article 1 of Law No 1398 of 14 December 1964
amending and supplementing Law No 736 of 10 July
1960 as regards the registration of Italian members of the
health-care professions residing abroad, having the effect
that only dentists of Italian nationality may remain regis-
tered with their professional association upon transferring
their residence to another Member State,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 39 EC and 43 EQ;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
by order of 13 March 2001 in the case of Verol Recycling
Limburg B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimte-
lijke Ordening en Milieubeheer

(Case C-116/01)

(2001/C 161/11)

1. Must Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) on waste
(the Framework Directive) be interpreted as permitting a
process for processing waste in which more than one
operation is performed, as described above, to be assessed
as a whole?

2.

3.a.

If so, does the process concerned constitute recovery
within the meaning of R1, R3 and R5 of Annex 11 B to
the Framework Directive if it results in the complete use
of the waste employed therein?

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, is the
extent (expressed as calorific values) to which the waste
contributes to the incineration process or the extent
(expressed as the level of material re-used) to which the
ash residues from that waste contribute to the production
process relevant as regards the classification of each
individual operation as recovery or disposal (R1, R3 and
R5 and D10 respectively)?

3.b. If so, on the basis of which criteria is it necessary to
assess whether or not the contribution is sufficient for
classification as recovery? In the absence of Community
criteria in this respect is it possible to apply national
criteria?

4.

If one operation must be classified as recovery and
another operation as disposal, how must the process be
regarded as a whole?

(1) OJ L 194, 1975, p. 39.

Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 1 February
2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-1/99 between
T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-122/01 P)

(2001/C 161/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 13 March 2001 by the
Raad van State (Council of State), which was received at the
Court Registry on 15 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Verol Recycling Limburg B.V. and Minister van
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on
the following questions:

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-1/99 between T. Port GmbH
& Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG,
represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.