Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Case C-206/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância do Porto): SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação SA v Direcção-Geral dos Registos e Notariado (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — "Duties paid by way of fees or dues" — Charge for entry in the commercial register)
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, pay, provision of services

28.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 212/7

approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master which is
appointed by the Wardens and Commonalty of Gold-
smiths of the city of Dublin;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay its own costs.

— by establishing differences between approved hallmarks
struck on articles manufactured in Ireland and those
hallmarks of the same type struck on articles imported
from other Member States,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advo-
cate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that:

— by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland with the descrip-
tion and indication of fineness which they bear in their
country of origin, of articles made from precious metals
(gold, silver or platinum) lawfully manufactured and
marketed in other Member States but not complying with
the Irish provisions concerning standards of fineness, or
by obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks with
those for the appropriate lower official Irish standard of
fineness;

— by requiring articles made from precious metals imported
from another Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to
bear a sponsor’s mark indicative of the maker, worker or
dealer in such articles, registered by the Wardens and
Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin which
appoints the Assay Master by which these articles are
intended to be struck with the approved hallmark, when
these articles already bear a sponsor’s mark conforming to
the legislation of the Member State of origin;

— by requiring articles made from precious metals imported
from another Member State, and marketed in Ireland,
which have been lawfully struck in another Member
State with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers
guarantees of independence, and which offers appropriate
information to consumers, to bear an approved hallmark
struck by the Assay Master which is appointed by the
Wardens and Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of
Dublin or an international hallmark notified in accord-
ance with the Convention on the Control and Marking of
Articles of Precious Metals; and

— by establishing differences between approved hallmarks
struck on articles manufactured in Ireland and those
hallmarks of the same type struck on articles imported
from other Member States,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 June 2001

in Case C-206/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Tributa´rio de Primeira Instância do Porto):
SONAE — Tecnologia de Informaça˜o SA v Direcça˜o-
Geral dos Registos e Notariado (1)

(Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — ‘Duties paid
by way of fees or dues’ — Charge for entry in the commercial
register)

(2001/C 212/11)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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

In Case C-206/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
from the Tribunal
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC)
Tributa´rio de Primeira Instância do Porto (Fiscal Court of First
Instance, Porto) (Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between SONAE —
Tecnologia de Informaça˜o SA and Direcça˜o-Geral dos Registos
e Notariado — on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 12 of
Council Directive 69/355/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
Edition 1969 II, p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
Judges; D. Ruı´z-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in which it
has ruled:

Article 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, is to interpreted
as meaning that charges for recording an increase in the share capital
of a capital company in a commercial register, which increase without
upper limit in direct proportion to the nominal capital subscribed and
are not calculated on the basis of the cost of the service rendered, such
as those at issue in the main proceedings, are not duties paid by way
of fees or dues.

C 212/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

The existence of a maximum which those charges cannot exceed is
not sufficient to make them duties paid by way of fees or dues if that
maximum is not established reasonably by reference to the cost of the
service in respect of which the charges are levied.

Furthermore, a Member State cannot, without making the charges in
question cease to be duties paid by way of fees or dues, introduce into
the scale of charges payable for a service rendered an element of
solidarity between large and small companies, by establishing, for
one and the same service, a higher charge for capital companies with
significant share capital than for those with less share capital, where
that difference in the charge bears no relation to the cost of the service.

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
to comply with Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommuni-
cations sectors, the French Republic has failed to comply with
its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 21 June 2001

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 29 May 2001

in Case C-1/00 SA: Cotecna Inspection SA v Commission
of the European Communities (1)

(Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities)

in Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(2001/C 212/13)

(Failure by Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
98/4/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(Language of the case: French)

(2001/C 212/12)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues and
S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
necessary to comply with Directive 98/4/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending
Directive 93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures
of entities operating in the water, energy,
transport and
telecommunications sectors (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1) or, at all
events, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,
the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr
J. Mischo,
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 21 June 2001, in which it:

Judges;

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

the European Communities

In Case C-1/00 SA: Cotecna Inspection SA, established in
Geneva (Switzerland), represented by J. H. J. Bourgeois, Avocat
(Agents:
v Commission of
M. De Pauw and B. Martenczuk) — application for authoris-
ation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of
the European Communities — the Court, composed of:
G. C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers,
D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. N. Cunha
Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given an
order on 29 May 2001, in which it:

1) Dismisses the application.

2) Orders Cotecna Inspection SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.