Case C-61/06: Action brought on  3 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, common transport policy, disclosure of information, report, substitute fuel

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Livorno by order of that court of 13 January 2006 in
Alberto Bianchi v De Robert Calzature S.R.L.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 31 January 2006 in
Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duis-
burg

(Case C-51/06)

(2006/C 86/22)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Livorno of 13
January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 1 February
2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Alberto Bianchi and De Robert Calzature S.R.L. on the
following questions:

the Member States

1) Given that the content of Article 17 of Council Directive
86/653 (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the
relating to self-employed
laws of
commercial agents, can Article 19 be interpreted as
meaning that it is permissible for the national implementing
legislation to provide that the indemnity owed to an agent
is payable under a collective agreement binding on its signa-
tories, without regard to the conditions set out in the two
indents of paragraph 2(a) of Article 17, and is calculated
not in accordance with the criteria to be found in the direc-
tive but in accordance with the criteria set out in the collec-
tive economic agreement itself, with the result that, in many
cases, the level of the indemnity to be paid would have to
be significantly lower than the ceiling provided for in the
directive.

2) Should the indemnity be calculated individually by esti-
mating the further commissions that the agent could have
earned in the years
the
contract on the basis of the new customers he has brought
or the growth in business that he has generated, using the
criterion of equity only to adjust the amount, or are other,
composite methods of calculation permitted, which make
greater use of the criterion of equity.

following the termination of

(1) OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17.

(Case C-56/06)

(2006/C 86/23)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
(Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 31 January 2006, received at the
Court Registry on 2 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH and
Hauptzollamt
(Principal Customs Office) Duisburg on the
following question:

Do the matching operations described in more detail
in the
present order go beyond simple operations of matching for the
purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Protocol 4 concerning the defini-
tion of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of
administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/97
of the Association Council, Association between the European
Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the
Republic of Poland, of the other part, of 30 June 1997? (1)

(1) OJ 1997 L 221, p. 1.

Action brought on 3 February 2006 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-61/06)

(2006/C 86/24)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February
2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

C 86/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by failing to submit its national annual report
on the promotion of biofuels before 1 July 2004, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)
of Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use
of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The report referred to in Article 4(1) of the directive should
have been sent to the Commission before 1 July 2004. To date,
the Commission has not received any information from the
Italian authorities.

The Commission therefore maintains that as matters now stand
Italy has not communicated the report on the promotion of
the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport
required under Article 4(1) of the directive.

(1) OJ L 123, p. 42.

2. In the latter hypothesis, is it sufficient for the competent
criminal authority (in the case of Portugal, the Public Prose-
cutor's Office) simply to lay a charge, or is it instead neces-
sary that the debtor should be convicted in the relevant
criminal proceedings?

3. Still in the latter hypothesis, are different conclusions to be
drawn from the fact that the court acquits the debtor by
virtue of the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, or
acquits him because it has been proved that the debtor did
not commit the offence in question?

4. What consequences follow if the Public Prosecutor's Office
does not lay a charge against the debtor, holding that there
is no evidence of an act that could give rise to criminal
court proceedings? Will such a decision preclude any action
to recover the duty not collected?

5. If the Public Prosecutor's Office or the criminal court itself
should close the case because the criminal proceedings are
time-barred, will such a decision make it
impossible to
bring the corresponding action to recover the duty not
collected?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-
clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not
been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for
a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11
January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública —
Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Impor-
taçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas by order of
that
court of 20 December 2005 in UAB ‘Profisa’ v Muitines
Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Minis-
terijos

(Case C-62/06)

(2006/C 86/25)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Supremo Tribunal
pean Communities by judgment of
Administrativo of 11 January 2006, received at
the Court
Registry on 6 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das
Alfândegas and Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de
Produtos Alimentares, Lda. on the following questions:

1. For the purposes of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1697/79 (1) of 24 July 1979,
is classification by the
customs authority as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal
court proceedings’ sufficient, or is it instead necessary that
that classification should be made by the competent crim-
inal court?

(Case C-63/06)

(2006/C 86/26)

(Language of the case: Lithuanian)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis
Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of
Lithuania) (Lithuania) of 20 December 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 3 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between UAB 'Profisa' and Muitines Departa-
Finansų Ministerijos
mentas
(Customs Department of
the
Republic of Lithuania) on the following question:

the Ministry of Finances of

Lietuvos Respublikos

prie