Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-372/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Transport of goods by road — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Conditions for exemption from the prohibition set out in Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 87(1) EC) — Existing aid or new aid — Principles of reasonableness and of the protection of legitimate expectations — Mo)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid to undertakings, carriage of goods, competition, road transport

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Request for an Opinion submitted by the European Parlia-
ment under Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Opinion 1/04)

(2004/C 118/01)

A request for an Opinion under Article 300(6) of the EC Treaty
was made on 21 April 2004 by the European Parliament,
represent by R. Passos, H. Duintjer Tebbens and N. Lorenz,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-372/97: Italian Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(State aid — Transport of goods by road — Effect on trade
between Member States and distortion of competition —
Conditions for exemption from the prohibition set out in
Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment,
Article 87(1) EC) — Existing aid or new aid — Principles of
reasonableness and of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions — Mo)

(2004/C 118/02)

(Language of the case: Italian)

The European Parliament requests the Court of Justice for a
reply to the following questions:

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(a) Is the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article
300(3) EC the appropriate legal basis for the Council Deci-
sion on the conclusion of the proposed agreement between
the European Community and the United States of America
on the processing and transfer of Passenger Name Record
data by air carriers to the United States Department of
Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protec-
tion?

(b) Must the abovementioned proposed agreement be regarded
as being compatible with the right to protection of personal
data, as enshrined in particular in Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the Com-
munity is required to observe in the same way as the
Treaty?

In Case C-372/97: Italian Republic (Agents: I. M. Braguglia,
assisted by O. Fiumara), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: P.
Nemitz and P. Stancanelli, assisted by M. Moretto), with an
address for service in Luxembourg — application for annul-
ment in part of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July
1997 concerning aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Region (Italy) to road haulage companies in the Region (OJ
1998 L 66, p. 18) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,
J. N.
Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Prinicple Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 29 April 2004, in which it:

1. Held that there is no need to adjudicate on the form of order
sought
in the action for annulment of Articles 2 and 5 of
Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning
aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to road
in so far as those articles
haulage companies in the Region,
declare that aid granted as from 1 July 1990 to undertakings
carrying out exclusively local, regional or national haulage is
illegal.

C 118/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

2. Dismissed the remainder of the action.

3. The

Italian Republic and the Commission of

the European

Communities are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.

1. Declares that, by automatically classifying as medicinal products
vitamin preparations lawfully manufactured or marketed as food
supplements in the other Member States in the case where they
contain three times more vitamins, other than vitamins A and D,
than the daily amount recommended by the Deutsche Gesellschaft
für Ernährung (German Food Association), the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Finland to

bear their own costs.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.

in Case C-387/99: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles
30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles
28 EC and 30 EC) — Directive 65/65/EEC — Food prepara-
tions containing three times more vitamins than the recom-
mended daily amount — Preparations lawfully marketed as
food supplements in the Member State of exportation —
Preparations classified as medicinal products in the Member
State of importation — ‘Medicinal product’ — Obstacle —
Justification — Public health — Proportionality — Admissi-
bility of the application)

(2004/C 118/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-387/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. Schmidt), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted
by J. Sedemund), supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J.
Molde), with an address for service in Luxembourg, and by
Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin), with an
address for service in Luxembourg - application for a declara-
tion that, by classifying as medicinal products vitamin and
mineral preparations which are lawfully produced or marketed
as food supplements in the other Member States in the case
where they contain three times more vitamins and mineral salts
recommended by the Deutsche
than the daily amount
Gesellschaft für Ernährung, the Federal Republic of Germany
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) - the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President
of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen, F.
Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-496/99 P: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA (1)

(Appeal — Common Agricultural Policy — Food aid —
Commission decision amending conditions after the contracts
awarded — Payment of tenderers in fruit other than those
specified in the notice of invitation to tender)

(2004/C 118/04)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-496/99 P: appeal by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agents: initially F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and
subsequently T. van Rijn and L. Visaggio, assisted by A. Dal
Ferro) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber) of 14 October 1999
in Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97 CAS Succhi di Frutta
SpA v Commission [1999] ECR II-3181, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA, established in Castagnaro (Italy)
(lawyers: initially A. Tizzano, G.M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone,
and subsequently G.M. Roberti and F. Sciaudone): - the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the Presi-
dent of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), and F. Macken,
Judges; S.
Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 29 April 2004, in which it: