Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/106/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, carriage of goods, combined transport, liberalisation of the market

C 200/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

— was resident in that State but was not carrying on an
occupational activity and was receiving a pension there
from another Member State in his capacity as a retired
civil servant,

— while being subject in his State of residence to laws
relating to the branches of social security referred to in the
Regulation.

However, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 Octo-
ber 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community does not apply in principle to a person who has
moved his place of residence from one Member State, in which
he had ceased to be in employment, to another Member State,
in which he is not employed and is not seeking employment.

The expression ‘nor is any pension payable’ in Article 28a of
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
lation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95,
must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which neither
a pension based on residence, such as the State pension provided
for by Finnish law, nor a pension based on gainful employment
and payable under the legislation of the Member State in which
the person concerned is resident, is actually paid to that person,
without its being necessary to ascertain whether he might
hypothetically be entitled thereto.

The general principle resulting from Regulation No 1408/71,
as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as
amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and applied by
Article 33 of that Regulation, according to which a person
entitled to a pension cannot, by reason of his residence in the
territory of a Member State, be called upon to pay compulsory
insurance contributions to cover benefits for which an institution
of another Member State has assumed responsibility, precludes
the Member State in whose territory he resides from requiring
him to pay contributions or similar payments prescribed by its
invalidity and unemployment
legislation to cover old-age,
benefits, where he is entitled to benefits having a similar
purpose,
the Member State
competent in respect of pensions assumes responsibility.

for which the institution of

The fact that the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
Sweden have waived, under Article 36(3) of Regulation
No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and
Article 23 of the Nordic Convention on Social Security of
15 June 1992 (106/93), all reimbursement of the costs of
benefits in kind provided by an institution in one of the Member
States on behalf of an institution of another Member State is
of no consequence for the purposes of interpreting Articles 28a
and 33(2) of the said Regulation.

2.

3.

4.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 10 May 2001

in Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/106/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
prescribed period)

(2001/C 200/28)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Wolfcarius and S. Dragone) v Italian Republic
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a
declaration that, by keeping in force a system of authorisations
and quotas for combined transport operations between Mem-
ber States, despite having converted all special authorisations
into general authorisations, the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/106/EEC of
7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
certain types of combined transport of goods between Member
States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38), in particular Article 2 thereof
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by keeping in force a system of authorisations
and quotas for combined transport operations between Member
States and despite having converted all special authorisations
into general authorisations, the Italian Republic failed in its
obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC
of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
certain types of combined transport of goods between Member
States;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.

(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.