Case C-94/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello by order of that Court of 4 February 2004 in the case of Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese)
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition, interpretation of the law

C 94/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2001
on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and
related rights in the information society, Sweden has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and

2. order Sweden to pay the costs of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive was to be implemented
expired on 22 December 2002.

— declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 2001/89/EC (1) of 23 October 2001
on Community measures for the control of classical swine
fever, or,
in any event, by failing to communicate those
provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of
Article 30 of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 31
October 2002.

(1) OJ L 316, 1.12.2001, p. 5.

Action brought on 24 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-92/04)

(2004/C 94/60)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by C. Cattabriga, 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 Council
Directive 2001/102/EC (1) of 27 November 2001 amending
Directive 1999/29/EC (2) on the undesirable substances and
products in animal nutrition, or by not communicating
those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that
directive;

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on
1 July 2002.

(1) OJ 2002 L 6 of 10.01.2002, p. 45.
(2) OJ 1999 L 115 of 4.5.1999, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello
by order of that Court of 4 February 2004 in the case of
Federico Cipolla against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese)

(Case C-94/04)

(2004/C 94/62)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello (Italy) of 4
February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 25 February
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Federico Cipolla
against Rosaria Fazari (neé Portolese) on the following ques-
tions:

— Does the principle of competition under Community law,
as set out in Articles 10, 81 and 82 EC, also apply to the
provision of legal services?

— Does that principle permit a lawyer's remuneration to be

agreed between the parties, with binding effect?

— Does that principle preclude an absolute prohibition of

derogation from lawyers' fees?

Action brought on 26 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

Action brought on 24 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-97/04)

(2004/C 94/63)

(Case C-93/04)

(2004/C 94/61)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2000/76/EC (1) of the European Parliament