Case C-67/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2003-04-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, chemical product, national implementing measure, occupational health, occupational safety, safety standard

C 83/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.4.2003

Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 14 February
2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
D. Lipjes

(Case C-67/03)

(2003/C 83/24)

(Case C-68/03)

(2003/C 83/25)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2000/39/EC (1) of 8 June 2000
establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure
limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/
24/EC (2) on the protection of the health and safety of
workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work,
or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 3(1) of that directive.

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, which provides that directives are binding on
the Member States as to the result to be achieved, requires the
Member States to respect the time-limits for transposition
stipulated in the directives. This
time-limit expired on
the Italian Republic having
31 December 2001 without
adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the Commission’s claims.

( 1) OJ L 142 of 16.06.2000, p. 47.
( 2) OJ L 131 of 5.05.1998, p. 11.

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 14 February
2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecretaris van Finan-
ciën against D. Lipjes on the following questions:

1. Must Article 28b(E)(3) of

the Sixth Directive (1) be
construed as meaning that that provision refers only to
services by intermediaries where the recipient of the
service is a taxable person within the meaning of the
directive or a non-taxable legal person within the meaning
of Article 28a of the Directive?

2.

If not, must the first sentence of Article 28b(E)(3) of the
Sixth Directive then be construed as meaning that where
an intermediary acts on the purchase and sale of a
tangible object between two individuals, for the purposes
of determining the place where the intermediary acts,
regard must be had to the place where the transaction is
carried out, as if the transaction were a supply or service
by a taxable person as referred to in Article 8 of the Sixth
Directive?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
di Venezia — Sezione IV Civile by order of that Court of
6 November 2002 in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di
Cornedo Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-69/03)

(2003/C 83/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
Venezia — Sezione IV Civile (Court of Appeal of Venice,
Fourth Civil Chamber) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. Coop.
a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question: