Case C-164/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on  27 March 2006  — Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, intra-EU trade, production, provision of services

C 154/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Must Article 249 EC be interpreted as meaning that Article
6 of that decision has a direct effect so as to require an indi-
vidual, as a final beneficiary,
to enter into the legally
binding commitments referred to in that respect and to
specifically allocate the requisite finance no later than 31
December 1999?

3. If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:

Does Article 38(1)(h) of Council Regulation (EC) No
1260/1999 (1) of 21 June 1999 laying down general provi-
sions on the Structural Funds, viewed in the light of the
principles of Community law,
leave the Member States
scope to refrain from recovery on account of an infringe-
ment of
subsidy beneficiary
concerned was unaware of that provision and is not at fault
for its lack of knowledge of that provision?

a provision where

the

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
considering that the contested letters of the Commission did
not contain a decision amenable to an action under Article 230
EC.

In Finland's view,
the Commission
the contested letters of
contain a decision amenable to an action under Article 230 EC.

By the contested decision the Commission in fact denied
Finland the opportunity to make a conditional payment within
the meaning of case-law of the Court of Justice.

The contested decision thus has binding legal effects for
Finland which affect Finland's interests and clearly change
Finland's legal position, as required by the case-law concerning
the application of Article 230 EC. In addition, the contested
decision caused a loss of rights for Finland and is thus mani-
festly adverse to Finland.

(1) OJ L 161, 21.06.2001, p.1.

Appeal brought on 27 March 2006 by the Republic of
Finland against the order made on 9 January 2006 in Case
T-177/05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-163/06 P)

(2006/C 154/12)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria provinciale di Roma lodged on 27 March 2006
— Nissan Italia Srl v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

(Case C-164/06)

(2006/C 154/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy)

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Finland (Agent: E. Bygglin)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nissan Italia Srl

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 3

Form of order sought

Question referred

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 9 January 2006 in Case T-177/
05 Republic of Finland v Commission of the European Commu-
nities and declare Finland's action under Article 230 EC
admissible and remit the main action to the Court of First
Instance of
in which the
Commission should be ordered to reimburse Finland also
the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

the European Communities,

Must Article 33 of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) (as amended by
Directive 91/680/EEC (2)) be interpreted as meaning that net
output value arising from regular engagement in independent
activities involving the production or exchange of goods or the
rendering of services cannot be made liable to IRAP (Imposta
Regionale sulle Attività Produttive — Regional tax on produc-
tion activities)?

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 145, 13/06/1977, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 376, 31/12/1991, p. 1.

Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance
infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice.