Case C-161/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system applicable to the common fisheries policy — Data concerning the species and quantities landed of fish — Failure to notify)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, disclosure of information, fishing regulations

C 331/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt
the measures necessary to comply with Directive
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of the
European Communities the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions implementing Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a
framework for Community action in the field of water policy, except
for those relating to Article 3 of that directive, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 24 of
that directive;

2. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Articles 2, 7(2) and 14 of Directive 2000/60/EC, the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 24 of that directive;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

4. Orders the Commission of

the European Communities and the

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darm-
stadt
(Administrative Court, Darmstadt) — Interpretation of
Art. 64 of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an
Association between the European Communities and their
Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia of
the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2) — Worker of Tunisian
nationality employed in a Member State — Equal treatment as
regards working conditions and remuneration — Curtailment of
the period of the validity of residence permit bringing the work-
er's employment to an end

Operative part of the judgment

On a proper construction of Article 64(1) of the Euro-Mediterranean
Agreement establishing an association between the European Commu-
nities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
Tunisia, of the other part, done at Brussels on 17 July 1995 and
approved on behalf of the European Community and the European
Coal and Steel Community by Decision 98/238/EC, ECSC of the
Council and the Commission of 26 January 1998, that provision may
have effects on the right of a Tunisian national to remain in the terri-
tory of a Member State in the case where that person has been duly
permitted by that Member State to work there for a period extending
beyond the period of validity of his permission to remain.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-
tungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Mohamed
Gattoussi v Stadt Rüsselsheim

(Case C-97/05) (1)

(Euro-Mediterranean Agreement — Tunisian worker with
permission to remain in a Member State and to work there —
Principle of non-discrimination as regards working conditions,
remuneration and dismissal — Curtailment of the period of
validity of the residence permit)

(2006/C 331/12)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Italian Republic

(Case C-161/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system applicable to the
common fisheries policy — Data concerning the species and
quantities landed of fish — Failure to notify)

(2006/C 331/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mohamed Gattoussi

Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim

Parties

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

Defendant:
Agent, G. Aiello and D. Del Grazio, lawyers)

Italian Republic (represented by:

I.M. Braguglia,

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/9

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Arti-
cles 15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93
of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to
the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Failure to
notify the data concerning the species and quantities of fish
caught

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to notify the data referred to in Articles
15(4) and 18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of
12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the
common fisheries policy for 1999 and 2000, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

Member State, but exemption for dividends paid to a parent
company
established in France — Taxation Convention
providing that the tax may be set off against the amount due in
the other Member State

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national

legislation
which, in imposing a liability to tax on dividends paid to a non-
resident parent company and allowing resident parent companies
almost full exemption from such tax, constitutes a discriminatory
restriction on freedom of establishment;

2) Article 43 EC and Article 48 EC preclude national

legislation
which imposes, only as regards non-resident parent companies, a
withholding tax on dividends paid by resident subsidiaries, even if a
tax convention between the Member State in question and another
Member State, authorising that withholding tax, provides for the
tax due in that other State to be set off against the tax charged in
accordance with the disputed system, whereas a parent company is
unable to set off tax in that other Member State, in the manner
provided for by that convention.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil
d'État, France) — Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit
France SARL v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de
l'Industrie

(Case C-170/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Payment of
dividends — Exemption for dividends paid to resident compa-
nies — Withholding tax levied on dividends paid to non-resi-
dent companies — Double taxation convention — Possibility
of setting off the amount withheld against tax due in another
Member State)

(2006/C 331/14)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo — Spain) — Confederación Española de Empre-
sarios de Estaciones de Servicio v Compañía Española de
Petróleos SA

(Case C-217/05) (1)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
— Agreements between undertakings — Article 85 of the
EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
now Article 81 EC) — Articles 10 to 13 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1984/83 — Exclusive fuel purchasing agreements desig-
nated ‘sales guarantee commission arrangements’ and ‘agency
contracts’ between service-station operators and oil compa-
nies)

(2006/C 331/15)

Language of the case: French

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit France SARL

Defendant: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) —
Interpretation of Art. 43 EC — Deduction of tax at source on
dividends paid to a parent company established in another

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones
de Servicio

Defendant: Compañía Española de Petróleos SA,