Case C-177/06: Action brought on  4 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/25

2. Can ‘special measures’ within the terms of Article 27(1) of
the Sixth Council Directive consist, having regard to their
character and purpose, in the possibility of imposing on a
taxable person for VAT purposes an additional tax liability
fixed by a decision of the tax authority where it is objec-
tively established that the taxable person has declared an
understated amount of tax liability or an overstated amount
of the tax difference to be repaid or an overstated amount
of input tax to be repaid?

(1) OJ 71, 14.4.1967, p. 1301.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Napoli lodged on 30 March 2006 — Giuseppina Montoro
and Michelangelo Liguori v Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center

(Case C-170/06)

(2006/C 143/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Giuseppina Montoro and Michelangelo Liguori

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Regionale di Genova lodged on 3 April 2006 —
Agrover S.r.l. v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale
di Genova

(Case C-173/06)

(2006/C 143/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrover S.r.l.

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

Questions referred

1. Can Article 216 of the Community Customs Code (Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992) apply where
a Community product (rice) previously exported under the
inward processing procedure with an EUR1 certificate to a
non-member country (with which an agreement on prefer-
ential tariff treatment is in force) gives rise to the application
of customs duties at the time of the subsequent compen-
sating reimportation of the same (or equivalent) goods from
a so-called ‘non-agreement’ non-member country?

2. If duties under Article 216 of the Community Customs
Code are not levied at the time of the compensating impor-
tation, may the customs authorities seek to recover them a
posteriori, or does the exemption referred to in Article 220
of the Community Customs Code apply?

Defendant: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Action brought on 4 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

Question referred

Interpretation of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention of
1968 requested in order to establish whether or not, leaving
aside the hypothesis of multiple instances of damage, the test
of the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred
can serve to found jurisdiction also for the courts of the place
where the person injured became aware of the existence of
damage attributable to an act that took place in another State.

(Case C-177/06)

(2006/C 143/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

C 143/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Form of order sought

— a declaration that, by having failed to adopt within the
period prescribed all the measures necessary to comply
with Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission's decisions of 20
December 2001 on a State aid scheme implemented by
Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava,
Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa, documents Nos C(2001) 4448
fin, (1) C(2001) 4475 fin (2) and C(2001) 4478 fin, (3) or, in
any case, by having failed to communicate such provisions
to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under those decisions and under the EC
Treaty;

— an order that the Kingdom of Spain should pay the costs.

2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard
to the further opening to competition of Community postal
services, (1) the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the directive;

— order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 31 December 2002.

transposing the directive into

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 176 of 5.7.2002, p. 21.

The period fixed in Article 4 of the decisions for the Kingdom
of Spain to communicate the implementation measures expired
on 1 March 2002 without the Commission's having received
any communication in that regard.

(1) OJ L 77 of 24 March 2003, p. 1
(2) OJ L 40 of 14 February 2003, p. 11
(3) OJ L 17 of 22 January 2003, p. 20

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Estonia

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-179/06)

(2006/C 143/49)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-178/06)

(2006/C 143/48)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by K. Simonsson and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to notify the laws and regulations
law Directive

transposing into national

necessary for

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, as the municipality of Altamura and the
region of Apulia approved, with effect
from December
2000, an alteration to a development plan comprising a
series of industrial construction operations liable to have a
significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia
Alta without having first carried out an impact assessment
procedure at least in respect of the impact on the SPA, the
its obligations under
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
Article 6(3) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC; (1)

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.