Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-140/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/18/EC — Transport by sea — Safety rules and standards for passenger ships)
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, carriage of passengers, maritime transport, safety standard

C 109/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third
life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:

in Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
L 243, p. 31), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under those provisions, the Court (Fourth Chamb-
er), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:

Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive)
precludes national legislation which provides that a life-assurance
proposal, or in the absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must
inform the policy-holder that cancellation, reduction or surrender of
an existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing to
another life-assurance policy is generally detrimental to the policy-
holder.

(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.

1. Declares that, by failing to draw up and communicate to the
Commission of the European Communities, by 16 September
1999 at the latest, the summaries of inventories provided for
in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September
1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polych-
lorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and the plans and outlines
provided for in Article 11 of the same directive, the Italian
Republic has
those
provisions.

its obligations under

failed to fulfil

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

27 February 2002

in Case C-46/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Waste management — Directive 96/59/EC — Disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)

(2002/C 109/22)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-46/01, Commission of the European Communities
(agents: H. Støvlbaek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a
declaration that, by failing to draw up and communicate to
the Commission by 16 September 1999 the appropriate
plans, outlines and summaries of inventories provided for

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

27 February 2002

in Case C-140/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/18/EC — Transport by sea — Safety rules and
standards for passenger ships)

(2002/C 109/23)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-140/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):
Application for a declaration that, by failing to notify the
Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC
of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger
ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1), or to adopt the measures necessary
to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the EC

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/15

Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
V. Skouris,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998
on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, the Kingdom
of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

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

(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 24 January 2002

in Case C-45/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Sonae Turismo,
SGPS, SA, against Fazenda Pu´ blica (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
69/335/EEC — Mandatory recordal in a commercial register
of the act relating to amendments to company statutes —
Duties paid by way of fees or dues)

(2002/C 109/24)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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

In Case C-45/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Sonae Turismo, SGPS, SA, and Fazenda Pu´ blica,
Ministério Pu´ blico,
intervener — on the interpretation of
Articles 4, 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/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 (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Fourth
Chamber, and A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

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, must be interpreted
as meaning that charges collected in respect of the recordal in a
national commercial register of an increase in the capital of a
capital company or of any other transaction falling within the
scope of that directive constitute a tax within the meaning of
that directive.

in a national
The charges payable in respect of recordal
commercial register of an increase in the capital of a capital
company or of any other transaction covered by Directive
69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, are, inasmuch as
they constitute a tax within the meaning of the directive,
prohibited in principle by Article 10(c) of that directive.

Charges levied in respect of the recordal in a national commercial
register of an increase in the capital of a capital company or of
any other transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended
by Directive 85/303, the amount of which increases directly
and without restriction in proportion to the paid-up capital of
the company are not duties paid by way of fees or dues.

Charges paid by way of fees or dues, within the meaning of
Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
85/303, include only those fees paid the amount of which is
calculated on the basis of the cost of the service provided.

In order to calculate the amount of such charges, a Member
State is entitled to take into account not only the costs in
materials and salary terms which are directly linked to the
registration operations in consideration of which they are paid,
but also the portion of the relevant general administrative costs
which are attributable to those operations. It is permissible for
a Member State to levy a charge only in respect of major
registration operations and for it to pass on to them the cost of
minor operations carried out free of charge.

The cost of registration in the commercial registration may be
assessed at a flat rate and must be established by reasonable
means taking into account, in particular, the number and the
type of agents, the time employed by those agents and the
various materials necessary to the completion of that operation.
However, a Member State is entitled to fix in advance, on the
basis of the average foreseeable registration costs, standard
charges for the completion of the formalities for registering
capital companies. There is nothing to prevent the amount of
those charges being established for an indeterminate period
provided that the Member State satisfies itself, at regular
intervals, for instance every year, that they continue not to
exceed its registration costs.