Case C-171/05 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2005 by L. Piau against the judgment delivered on 26 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-193/02 between L. Piau and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), complaint to the Commission, dominant position, infringement of EU law, professional sport, sports body

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/5

2. Is such a system of deduction at source itself open to chal-
lenge in the light of the principle of freedom of establish-
ment, or, where a taxation agreement between France and
another Member State authorising that deduction at source
provides for the tax due in that other Member State to be
set off against
the tax charged in accordance with the
disputed system, must that agreement be taken into account
in assessing the compatibility of the system with the prin-
ciple of freedom of establishment?

3. In the event that the second alternative set out at 2 above is
held to apply, is the existence of the aforementioned agree-
ment sufficient to ensure that the disputed system may be
regarded merely as a means of apportioning the taxable
item between the two States concerned without any effect
on the undertakings, or must
that a parent
company which is not domiciled in France may be unable
to set off tax as provided for by the agreement mean that
this system must be regarded as incompatible with the prin-
ciple of freedom of establishment?

the fact

Instance of

Appeal brought on 15 April 2005 by L. Piau against the
judgment delivered on 26 January 2005 by the Court of
the European Communities (Fourth
First
Chamber)
in Case T-193/02 between L. Piau and the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
the Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA)

(Case C-171/05 P)

(2005/C 155/10)

(Language of the case: French)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 January 2005
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) in Case T-193/02 between L. Piau and the
Commission of the European Communities, supported by the
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 26 January 2005 by L. Piau, represented by M.
Fauconnet, avocat.

2. annul the decision of the European Commission of 15 April

2002;

3. give final judgment in the matter itself, by application of the
first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of
Justice, since the state of the proceedings so permits;

4. order FIFA to pay the costs of Case T-193/02 and of this

appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. Infringement of the applicant's rights

The Court of First Instance, by failing of its own motion to
raise the question of the breach of Article 253 EC by the
Commission, which failed to give reasons for its rejection
of the applicant's complaint under Article 49 EC, failed to
have regard to the powers attributed to it. Furthermore,
the Court of First Instance infringed Article 6(1) of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms because it failed to take into
account some of the pleas advanced by the applicant.

2. Infringement of Article 81 EC

In the absence of factual evidence regarding the necessary
regulation of the profession and evidence showing the
economic or technical progress of FIFA's regulation of
players' agents, the decision of the Court of First Instance
is without a legal basis. The Court of First Instance erred in
law in holding that there was no Community interest in
pursuing the complaint, although the judgment had no
legal basis and Article 81 EC had been infringed.

3. Infringement of Article 82 EC

In the absence of enquiries by the Commission into the
dominant position of FIFA and into possible abuse thereof,
the Court of First Instance could not assume the role of
the Commission, after having established the existence of
that dominant position, and find that there was no abuse,
erring in law and thus infringing Article 82 EC.

4. Contradictory and insufficient reasoning of the Court of
First Instance amounting to a lack of reasoning as to the
continuation of anti-competitive effects.

5. Error in law as to the equivalence of the ‘FIFA diplomas’.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

6. Infringement of the general principle of legal certainty.

1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case

7. Error

in law as regards the task and powers of

the

T-193/02;

Commission.

C 155/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

8. Infringement of Article 39 EC.

9. Infringement of Article 49 EC.

10. Error in law as regards the definition of Community

interest.

second, Article 6(4) provides that the taxable persons are the
pipeline owners ‘which carry out at
the activities
(transport, sales, purchasing)’ relating to gas. The Commission
infers from this that the real objective of the Sicilian legislation
is to tax the product transported (methane) and not the infra-
structure (gas pipeline) as such.

least one of

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-173/05)

(2005/C 155/11)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 April
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by E. Traversa and J. Hottiaux, of its Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by enacting and maintaining in force the ‘envir-
onmental protection tax’ on gas pipelines laid down by
Article 6 of Sicilian Regional Law No 2 of 26 March 2002
(published in GURS (Official Journal of the Sicilian Region)
Part I No 14 of 2002), the Italian Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 23 EC, 25 EC, 26 EC and
133 EC and Articles 4 and 9 of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria signed on 26 April
1976 and approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No
2210/78 of 26 September 1978 (1);

According to the Court's case-law on internal taxation within
the meaning of Article 90 EC, a tax charged on the method of
transport according to the weight of the goods transported falls
within the scope of the Community provisions on taxation of
goods, since such a tax inevitably and immediately adds to the
cost of the good transported, whether national or imported. It
follows from the principle of interpretation set out in that case-
law, which is readily applicable to taxes having equivalent
effect to customs duty, that in the present case, the national
tax, even if formally chargeable on the means of transport (gas
pipelines) according to the volume of the good (methane) trans-
ported, in fact applies to the good itself and is inevitably and
directly added to its cost.

(1) OJ 1978 L 263 of 27.9.1978.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court
of 19 April 2005 in the proceedings between 1. Stichting
Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie, 2. Stichting Natuur en
Milieu and College voor de Toelating van Bestrijdingsmid-
delen; joined party: Bayer CropScience B.V.

(Case C-174/05)

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(2005/C 155/12)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Article 6 of the Sicilian Regional Law in question infringes the
principles of the Common Customs Tariff in so far as it estab-
lishes a tax having equivalent effect to an import duty (into the
Community) or export duty (to other Member States) prohib-
ited under
the Treaty and Community
the provisions of
secondary law referred to above.

From a formal point of view and according to the wording of
the contested legislation, the taxable event is the ownership of
the plant whereas the taxable amount is based on the volume,
in cubic metres, of the pipelines. However, the Sicilian legisla-
ture took care to specify, first, in Article 6(3), that the taxable
event is the ownership of the gas pipelines ‘containing the gas’;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court
for Trade and
Industry) (Netherlands) of 19 April 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 19 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between 1. Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufeder-
atie, 2. Stichting Natuur en Milieu and College voor de
Toelating van Bestrijdingsmiddelen (Board for the Authorisa-
tion of Pesticides); joined party: Bayer CropScience B.V., on the
following question: