Case C-477/04: Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2005-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, genetically modified organism, marketing standard, plant propagation, vineyard

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/5

In conclusion, pursuant to Article 234 EC, the questions indi-
cated above regarding the interpretation of Articles 17 and 19
of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
employed commercial agents must be referred to the Court of
Justice.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
Arnhem, by decision of that court of 27 October 2004 in
the case of N. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
Oost/Kantoor Almelo

(Case C-470/04)

(2005/C 31/11)

pursued within a foreseeable period? If so, how long
may that period be?

1.1.3 If the answer to question 1.1.1 or 1.1.2 is affirmative, do
Articles 18 or 43 EC preclude the relevant Dutch legisla-
tion by virtue of which an assessment to income tax and
social insurance contributions is served in respect of the
deemed enjoyment of profit from a substantial share-
holding, solely on the ground that a resident of the Neth-
erlands who ceases to be a domestic taxpayer because he
has moved his place of residence to another Member
State is deemed to have disposed of those of his shares
which form part of a substantial holding?

1.1.4 If the answer to question 1.1.3 is affirmative because of
the fact that security has to be provided to enable a
deferment of payment of
the tax assessed, can the
existing obstacle then be removed with retroactive effect
through the release of the security provided? Does the
answer to this question depend on whether the security
is released on the basis of legislation or a rule of policy,
whether or not adopted in the context of enforcement?
Does the answer to this question depend on whether
compensation is provided for any loss incurred as a
result of the provision of security?

(Language of the case: Dutch)

1.1.5 If the answer to question 1.1.3 is affirmative and the
answer to the first question in 1.1.4 is negative, can the
obstacle which then exists be justified?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Gerechtshof Arnhem,
(Court of Appeal, Arnhem) (Netherlands) of 27 October 2004
received at the Court Registry on 2 November 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of N. against Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst Oost/Kantoor Almelo on the following ques-
tions:

1.1.1 Can a resident of a Member State who ceases to reside in
to establish himself
in
that Member State in order
another Member State rely,
in proceedings against the
Member State which he is leaving, on the application of
Article 18 EC, solely on the ground that the serving of a
tax assessment linked with his departure entails, or may
entail, an obstacle to that departure?

1.1.2 If the answer to question 1.1.1 is negative, can a resident
of a Member State who ceases to reside in that Member
State in order to establish himself in another Member
State rely,
the Member State
which he is leaving, on the application of Article 43 EC
if it is not clear or plausible from the outset that he will
be pursuing in the other Member State an economic
activity as referred to in that article? Is it relevant to the
answer to the previous question that that activity will be

in proceedings against

Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-477/04)

(2005/C 31/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Justice of

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
the European Communities on 16
Court of
November 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Barry Doherty,
acting as Agents.

C 31/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2005

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 2002/11/EC (1) of 14 February 2002
amending Directive 68/193/EEC (2) on the marketing of
material
for the vegetative propagation of the vine and
repealing Directive 74/649/EEC or, in any case, by having
failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3
of that directive;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

or himself carries out its recovery or disposal in compli-
ance with Community provisions; and

c) by not adopting the necesssary measures to ensure, in
relation to such dumping,
the place where
dangerous waste is deposited, it is catalogued and identi-
fied, that various categories of dangerous waste are not
mixed together, and that dangerous waste is not mixed
with non-dangerous waste,

that, at

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and under
Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on
hazardous waste.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs

The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into
national law expired on 3 February 2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 53 of 23 February 2002, p. 20.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition: 1968(I), p. 93

The Commission maintains that, on the grounds set out in its
application, the Italian Republic has, in relation to the dump of
Ca di Capri (Verona) failed to fulfil its obligations under Direc-
tive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EC, and
under Directive 91/689/EEC.

Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39
(2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32
(3) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20

(Case C-478/04)

(2005/C 31/13)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by decision of that court of 16 November 2004 in the case
of Laserdisken ApS against Kulturministeriet

Justice of

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of
the European Communities on 16
November 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Giuseppe
nities,
Bambara, acting as Agents.

— The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:

(Case C-479/04)

(2005/C 31/14)

(Language of the case: Danish)

a) by not adopting the necessary measures to ensure that
dangerous waste deposited in the dump of Ca di Capri
(Verona) are recovered or disposed of without endan-
gering human health and without using procedures or
methods which might be prejudicial to the environment;
and

By order of 16 November 2004 of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Regional Court), Denmark, received at the Court Registry on
19 November 2004, reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Laserdisken ApS against Kulturministeriet on the
following questions:

b) by not adopting the necessary measures to ensure that
the owner of dangerous waste deposited in that dump
consigns such waste to a private or public disposal
contractor, or to an undertaking carrying out the opera-
tions referred to in Annexes IIA or IIB to the directive,

1. Is Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the
harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
rights in the information society (1) invalid?