Case C-346/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Cagliari — Sezione Civile — by order of that Court of 29 April 2003 in the case of Giuseppe Atzeni and Others against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna
Date: 2003-11-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sardinia, State aid, agricultural holding, agricultural structure, aid for restructuring, aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law

C 264/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.11.2003

4.

Irrespective of progressive limits or thresholds, must
those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g) of the
EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
(Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
Member State which does not make it a punishable
offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning
disclosure and the provision of accurate information
where the false statements or the fraudulent omissions
and, thus, the disclosures and statements which do not
give a true and fair view of the company’s assets and
liabilities and financial position do not distort ‘to an
appreciable extent’ the company’s assets, liabilities and
financial position (even though it is for the national
legislature to define the concept of ‘appreciable distor-
tion’?

5. Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
(Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
Member State which, in response to an infringement by
companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
and the provision of accurate information imposed on
them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members
and third parties’, allows only members and creditors to
seek imposition of a penalty, thereby excluding third
parties from any general and effective protection?

6. Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)
of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
(Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the
fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
Member State which, in response to the infringement by
companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
and the provision of accurate information imposed on
them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members
and third parties’, provides for prosecution machinery and
a sanctionative system which are markedly differentiated,
whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment
upon complaint being made, together with more serious
and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements
occasioning loss to members and creditors?

(1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-
ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests
of members and others, are required by Member States of
companies within the meaning of
the second paragraph of
Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards
equivalent throughout the Community (English special edition...:
Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).

(2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
types of companies (OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11).

(3) Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on
the Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ
L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1).

(4) Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending
Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/
EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those
Directives (OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Cagliari — Sezione Civile — by order of that Court of
29 April 2003 in the case of Giuseppe Atzeni and Others
against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-346/03)

(2003/C 264/26)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Cagliari
— Sezione Civile (Cagliari District Court — Civil Chamber) of
29 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on 6 August
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Giuseppe Atzeni
and Others against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna on the
following questions on the validity of Commission Decision
No 612/97 (1), with regard to the following defects:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

lack of competence of the Commission to adopt the
contested decision inasmuch as it infringes Article 32 of
the Treaty on European Union in conjunction with
Articles 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 thereof;

infringement of the rules which govern the procedure
provided for in Article 88(1) of the Treaty on European
Union;

infringement of the rules which govern the procedure
provided for in Article 88(2) and (3) of the Treaty on
European Union;

failure to provide a statement of reasons as required
by Article 253 of the Treaty on European Union in
conjunction with Articles 88(3) and 87(1) thereof;

infringement and misapplication of Council Regulation
No 797/85 (2) on improving the efficiency of agricultural
structures;

infringement of and failure to observe ‘practice for aid to
farms in difficulty’ and the ‘Community guidelines on
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty’.

(1) OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.
(2) OJ L 93 of 30.3.1985, p. 1.