Case C-151/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium)by judgment of that court of 16 January 2004 inthe case Ministère public against
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, interpretation of the law, residence, shareholder, vehicle registration, worker (EU)

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/45

Must the provisions of Directive 70/458 (1) in conjunction with
those of Directive 92/33 (2) be interpreted in such a way that it
is possible to include in the common catalogue of varieties
only varieties of shallots which reproduce without seeds, by
vegetative propagation, and, accordingly, could the varieties
‘Matador’ and ‘Ambition’ lawfully be included in the common
catalogue in the entry dealing with shallots?

the territory of the Municipality of Carrara, it is ‘exported’
from that territory and gives rise to a toll system (yielding
LIT 754,561,665 in 1996) by which the tax authority
infringes the principles of the free movement of goods and
freedom of competition in the pricing of products, contrary
to Articles 23 (ex Article 9) to 31 of the EC Treaty;

(1) Council Directive 70/458/EEC of 29 September 1970 on the
marketing of vegetable seed (OJ English Special Edition 1970 (III), p.
674).

(c) the ‘marble charge’, which does not apply to extracted
marble that does not leave the territory of the Municipality
of Carrara, inevitably gives rise to unfavourable treatment
of those persons transporting that commodity outside the
territory of that municipality, which is incompatible with
the rules contained in Articles 81, 85 and 86 of the current
text of the Treaty (formerly Articles 85, 89 and 90).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione, Sezione Tributaria, by interlocutory order
of that court of 27 October 2003, in the case of IMEG srl
Fallita against Comune Carrara

(Case C-149/04)

(2004/C 106/77)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di Cassa-
zione, Sezione Tributaria (Supreme Court of Cassation, Tax
Chamber) (Italy) of 27 October 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 23 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling on the
following question:

whether an Italian law which establishes a charge on the extrac-
tion of marble carried out in a particular municipality and on
its export from the territory of that municipality, with exemp-
tions for marble used in the territory of the municipality of
production, is compatible with the EC Treaty in so far as:

(a) the ‘marble charge’, governed by Law No 749/1911, is a
compulsory payment of uncertain legal nature given that it
cannot technically be classified as a charge since its amount
does not correspond to the supply of services to each
taxable person, nor technically as a tax since it bears no
relationship to the capacity to pay;

(b) the ‘marble charge’, which is used to finance the expendi-
ture of the Municipality of Carrara arising directly or indir-
ectly from the extraction of marble, appears to constitute a
type of ‘duty’ on a commodity in that, after extraction in

(2) Council Directive 92/33/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of
vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed (OJ L
157 of 10.06.1992, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of
16 January 2004 in the case Ministère public against

(Case C-151/04)

(2004/C 106/78)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Police (local
criminal court), Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 16 January 2004,
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2004,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère public against
Claude Nadin - third party to the proceedings: Nadin-Lux SA.

The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court
of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following ques-
tion:

Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a
Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker
who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there
even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company
established in another Member State and to which that worker
is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same
time he occupies a the position of shareholder, director, day-to-
day manager or similar?