Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) — Tax on motor vehicles)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, motor vehicle, technical specification, vehicle tax

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/19

1.

2.

Statutory provisions of a Member State which, first, require
private electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity
produced in their area of supply from renewable energy sources
at minimum prices higher than the real economic value of that
type of electricity, and, second, distribute the financial burden
resulting from that obligation between those electricity supply
undertakings and upstream private electricity network operators
do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1)
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).

In the current state of Community law concerning the electricity
market, such provisions are not incompatible with Article 30
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC).

(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-165/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Correctionnel d’Arlon, Belgium): André
Mazzoleni v Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of
workers for performance of a contract — Directive 96/71/EC
— Guaranteed minimum wage)

(2001/C 173/32)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-165/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
from the Tribunal
Correctionnel d’Arlon (Criminal Court, Arlon), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before
that court against André Mazzoleni, and Inter Surveillance
Assistance SARL, as the party civilly liable, third parties: E´ ric
Guillaume and Others — on the interpretation of Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the
framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)

and of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevo´ n,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it has
ruled:

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do not preclude
a Member State from requiring an undertaking established in another
Member State which provides services in the territory of the first State
to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national
rules of that State. The application of such rules might, however,
prove to be disproportionate where the workers involved are employees
of an undertaking established in a frontier region who are required to
carry out, on a part-time basis and for brief periods, a part of their
work in the territory of one, or even several, Member States other
than that in which the undertaking is established. It is consequently
for the competent authorities of the host Member State to establish
whether, and if so to what extent, application of national rules
imposing a minimum wage on such an undertaking is necessary and
proportionate in order to ensure the protection of
the workers
concerned.

(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 95
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
Tax on motor vehicles)

(2001/C 173/33)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-265/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic

C 173/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a
declaration that:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

— by retaining and applying rules providing for the appli-
cation of a formula for calculating the engine rating for
administrative purposes which is unfavourable to vehicles
fitted with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed
automatic transmission, which has discriminatory or
protectionist effects in the case of vehicles manufactured
in other Member States compared with similar or compet-
ing domestic vehicles, and

— by retaining provisions limiting the K factor for the
purposes of calculating the engine rating for tax purposes
of vehicles approved on an individual basis between
1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988 and which are
regarded as equivalent to type-approved vehicles having
an actual power output in excess of 100 kW,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90
EC) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Jann and L. Sevo´ n,
D.A.O. Edward, P.
Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that by retaining and applying rules providing for the
application of a formula for calculating the engine rating for
administrative purposes which is unfavourable to vehicles fitted
with a six-speed manual gearbox or five-speed automatic
transmission, which has discriminatory or protectionist effects
in the case of vehicles manufactured in other Member States
compared with similar or competing domestic vehicles, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC);

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

(Third Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

in Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Failure to transpose Directive 97/24/EC — Components and
characteristics of two or three-wheel motor vehicles)

(2001/C 173/34)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-83/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. van der Hauwaert) v Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agents: M.A. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) application for a
declaration that, by failing within the prescribed period to
adopt
the laws, regulations and administrative measures
necessary in order to comply with Directive 97/24/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on
certain components and characteristics of two or three-wheel
motor vehicles (OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1), the Kingdom of the
Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under
the EC Treaty — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March
2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt
the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
order to comply with Directive 97/24/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1997 on certain
components and characteristics of two or three-wheel motor
vehicles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply
with its obligations under the EC Treaty;

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

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.