Case C-476/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, rail transport, transport policy

C 21/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

— Does Article 2621 of the Codice Civile (as amended by
Legislative Decree No 61 of 11 April 2002), which
provides for a sentence of
imprisonment of up to
18 months and consequently a maximum limitation
period from the time when the offence is committed of
four and a half years, satisfy those requirements? That
occurs in a legal system which provides, after the
investigating judge completes his investigation and the
public prosecutor brings criminal proceedings, for review
there is
by the investigating judge to ascertain that
sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial and
for the possibility of three tiers of courts before judgment
is definitive and thus, in the case of a conviction, the
penalty is actually imposed. In addition, account must be
taken of the complexity of the findings required under
Article 2621 of the Codice Civile, given the thresholds
of criminal relevance set by Articles 2621, paragraphs 3
and 4.

(1) OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8; English Special Edition: Series-I I

Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 by order
of that Court of 9 October 2003 in the case of Banca
Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against Agenzia
Entrate Ufficio Cremona

(Case C-475/03)

(2004/C 21/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tribu-
taria Provinciale di Cremona, Sezione 02 (Cremona Tax Court,
Second Chamber) of 9 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Banca Popolare di Cremona Soc. Coop.a.r.l. against
Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Cremona on the following question:

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that it
prohibits a charge to IRAP of the net value of production
deriving from the regular exercise of independent activity to
produce or exchange goods or to provide services?

Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
lic of Austria

(Case C-476/03)

(2004/C 21/30)

An action against
the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt and Dr
Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

3.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s
railways (1) or, at any rate, by failing to inform the
Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive
95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings (2) or,
at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations of
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (3) or,
at any rate, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

4.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of those directives expired on
15 March 2003.

(1) OJ L 145 of 3.6.1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 376 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.

(1) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 26.
(3) OJ No L 75, 15.03.2001, p. 29.