Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Free movement of goods — Precious metals — Compulsory hallmark)
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, marketing, precious metal, trade mark

C 212/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 June 2001

in Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
Directive 76/160/EEC)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 21 June 2001

in Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Ireland (1)

(2001/C 212/09)

(Free movement of goods — Precious metals — Compulsory
hallmark)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(2001/C 212/10)

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

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: L. Ström) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) —
application for a declaration that, by failing to take all
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water
conforms to the limit values laid down by Council Directive
76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1) and by failing to adhere to
the minimum sampling frequencies laid down by that directive,
the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive — the Court (Third
Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
er, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure
that the quality of bathing water conforms to the mandatory
limit values laid down by Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water,
and by failing to adhere to the minimum sampling frequencies
laid down by that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that
directive;

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

(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.

In Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R.B. Wainwright and M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent:
M.A. Buckley, assisted by A.M. Collins) supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R. Magrill, assisted by M. Hoskins) — application for a
declaration 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 (gold,
silver or platinum) 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 Gold-
smiths 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 (gold,
silver or platinum) 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

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.