Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2001 in Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Admissibility)
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air transport, bird, transport safety

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/19

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 17 May 2001

(Sixth Chamber)

of 17 May 2001

in Case C-119/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal d’instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris):
Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et
Droits Indirects (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined nomenclature —
Classification of a multi-function machine combining the
functions of printer, photocopier, facsimile machine and
computer scanner — Principal function — Validity of
Regulation (EC) No 2184/97)

in Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
Admissibility)

(2001/C 200/33)

(Language of the case: French)

(2001/C 200/34)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

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

In Case C-119/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
from the Tribunal
d’instance (District Court) du VIIe arrondissement de Paris
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hewlett Packard BV and Directeur
Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects — on the interpret-
ation of point 3 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2184/97 of 3 November 1997 concerning the classification
of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ 1997
L 299, p. 6) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
V. Skouris, President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:

Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing that
would affect the validity of point 3 of the Annex to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2184/97 of 3 November 1997 concerning the
classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

In Case C-159/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza,
assisted by P.G. Ferri and M. Fiorilli) — application for a
declaration that:

— by laying down rules permitting the capture and keeping
of three species (Passer italiae, Passer montanus and
Sturnus vulgaris), contrary to Articles 5 and 7 of Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and Annex II
thereto, and by providing that those rules are to apply by
way of a general and permanent derogation, which is
contrary to Article 9 of that Directive and engenders an
unacceptable degree of legal uncertainty; and

— by laying down rules concerning the conditions and
detailed rules for the application of the derogation from
the prohibitions laid down by Directive 79/409 which do
not fully comply with the requirements under Article 9
thereof, in particular as regards the reasons for dero-
gation, listed in Article 9(1)(a) and (b),

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
is, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 May 2001, in
which it:

C 200/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

1. Declares that, by laying down rules permitting the capture and
keeping of the species Passer italiae, Passer montanus and
Sturnus vulgaris, contrary to the combined provisions of
Articles 5 and 7 of’Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Annex II thereto,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 17 May 2001

Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. Where a taxable person allocates for purposes other than those
of the business goods (in this case a motor vehicle) on the
acquisition of which value added tax was not deductible and
which, after being acquired, had value-added-tax-deductible
work done on them,
the value added tax payable under
Article 5(6) of 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 applies solely to the ‘component
parts’ of the goods in respect of which there was entitlement to
deduct, namely the components which definitively lost their
physical and economic distinctiveness when they were incorpor-
ated in the vehicle, after its purchase, following transactions
involving supplies of goods which led to a lasting increase in
the value of the vehicle which has not been entirely consumed at
the time of the allocation.

2.

In the case of an allocation which is taxable under Article 5(6)
of the Sixth Directive 77/388, in particular the allocation of
goods (in this case a motor vehicle)

— which were acquired without any entitlement to deduct,

in Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt
Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer (C-322/99) and Finanzamt
Düsseldorf-Mettmann v KIaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) (1)

— on which work giving entitlement to deduct has been
carried out, resulting in the incorporation of ‘component
parts’ in the goods,

(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 5(6) and 11A(1)(b) —
Allocation of business goods for private purposes — Tax-
ation if the goods or the component parts thereof gave
rise to entitlement to deduct input VAT — Meaning of
‘component parts’ of the goods allocated)

the taxable amount for the purposes of Article 11(A)(1)(b) of
Sixth Directive 77/388 must be determined with reference to
the price, at the time of the allocation, of the goods incorporated
in the vehicle which constitute component parts of the goods
allocated, within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that directive.

(2001/C 200/35)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-322/99 and C-323/99: references to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Finanzamt Burgdorf and Hans-Georg Fischer
(C-322/99) and between Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Mettmann and
Klaus Brandenstein (C-323/99) — on the interpretation of
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 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth
the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of

3. Where work which is carried out on goods (in this case a motor
vehicle) after their purchase and on which input value added tax
was deducted does not give rise to liability for value added tax
pursuant to Article 5(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 when the
vehicle is allocated, the value added tax deducted in respect of
that work must be adjusted in accordance with Article 20(1)(b)
of that directive if the value of the work in question has not
been entirely consumed in the context of the business activity of
the taxable person before the vehicle is allocated to his private
assets.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.