Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2001 in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum price for producers)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), production aid, vegetable product

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/3

respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the French
Republic, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

3

.Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 November 2001

in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum
price for producers)

(2002/C 84/04)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

for

annulment

In Case C-146/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —
application
of Commission Decision
1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34),
in so far as it disallowed ITL 7 421 939 820 of expenditure
incurred by the Italian Republic for aid for the processing of
tomatoes — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Mack-
en, President of
the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in
which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

24 January 2002

in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia
Construço˜ es Lda (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings
— Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum
wage)

(2002/C 84/05)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-164/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the infringement proceedings brought
before that court against Portugaia Construço˜ es Lda, on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty
the
(now Article 50 EC) and of Directive 96/71/EC of
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), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
Judges,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola,
Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in
which it has ruled:

1.

In assessing whether the application by the host Member State
to service providers established in another Member State of
domestic legislation laying down a minimum wage is compat-
ible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
EC), it is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the
national courts to determine whether, considered objectively,
that legislation provides for the protection of posted workers. In
that regard, although the declared intention of the legislature
cannot be conclusive, it may nevertheless constitute an indication
as to the objective pursued by the legislation.