Case C-174/05: 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 Bestrijdingsmiddelen; joined party: Bayer CropScience B.V.
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labelling, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product, plant health legislation, plant health product

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:

25.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/7

Is Article 2(3) of Decision 2003/199/EC (1) valid?

(1) Council Decision of 18 March 2003 concerning the non-inclusion
of aldicarb in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the
withdrawal of
for plant protection products
containing this active substance (OJ L 76 of 22 March 2003, p. 21).

authorisations

The Irish authorities have relied upon Article 5(3) of the Direc-
tive and exempted by Order ‘stated classes of institutions from
payment of remuneration in respect of lending in practice’. The
scope of this exemption is so wide that it permits all public
educational and academic institutions to which the members of
the public have access to engage in public lending with the
result that all public lending institutions are exempt from the
lending right and are also absolved from payment of remunera-
tion.

The Commission maintains that
this situation clearly goes
beyond the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 5(3) of
the Directive and that Ireland therefore has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of the Directive.

Action brought on 19 April 2005 by Commission of the
European Communities against Ireland

(1) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61

(Case C-175/05)

(2005/C 155/13)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 April 2005 by the
the European Communities, represented by
Commission of
Michael Shotter and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by exempting all categories of public lending
establishments, within the meaning of Council Directive
92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and
lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in
the field of intellectual property (1),
Ireland has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that Directive;

2. order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Directive defines ‘lending’

Article 1(3) of
in terms of
making available for use, for a limited period of time and not
for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage ‘when
it is made through establishments which are accessible to the
public’. Article 5(3) allows Member States to exempt ‘certain
categories of establishments’ from the payment of remunera-
tion.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Social Único de Algeciras by order of that court of 30
March 2005 in Maria Cristina Guerrero Pecino v Fondo de
Garantía Salarial (FOGASA)

(Case C-177/05)

(2005/C 155/14)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social Único
de Algeciras of 30 March 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 20 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between María Cristina Guerrero Pecino and the Fondo de
Garantía Salarial.

The Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras asks the Court of
Justice to give a ruling on the following questions:

consequently, must

Having regard to the general principle of equality and non-
discrimination, is the inequality in treatment created by Article
33.2 of the Workers' Statute and by the interpretation made of
that provision by the Tribunal Supremo objectively justified
and,
compensation for dismissal be
excluded where it is payable to a worker pursuant to judicial
conciliation within
Council Directive
80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of
employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, in
the version amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (2) of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002,

ambit

the

of