Case C-190/07: Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2007-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, marketing, national implementing measure, seed, testing, third country

C 129/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.6.2007

3. Where the first question is answered in the negative and the
second in the affirmative, can the producer of heavy fuel oil
(Total Raffinage) and/or the seller and carrier (Total Interna-
tional Ltd) be regarded as the producer and/or holder of
waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) and (c) of Directive
2006/12/EC and for the purposes of applying Article 15 of
that Directive, even though at the time of the accident which
transformed it into waste the product was being transported
by a third party?

administrative actions or criminal proceedings and imposing
penalties which have a deterrent effect on those responsible;

its obligations
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
under Article 2(1) and Article 31(1) and (2) of Regulation
(EEC) No 2847/93 (3).

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 imposing an
the EEC to maintain minimum
obligation on Member States of
stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products (OJ, English Special
Edition 1968(II), p. 586).

(2) Council Directive 98/93/EC of 14 December 1998 amending Direc-
tive 68/414/EEC imposing an obligation on Member States of the
EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum
products (OJ 1998 L 358, p. 100).

(3) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975

L 194, p. 39).

(4) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Direc-

tive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).

(5) Directive 2006/12/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the

Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9).

Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-189/07)

(2007/C 129/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by P. Oliver and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The regulatory framework applicable requires that Member
States:

— implement an effective system for the monitoring, inspec-
tion and surveillance of landing and marketing activities in
relation to species subject to rules on minimum size;

— impose penalties which have a deterrent effect on those

responsible for infringing Community provisions;

— enforce effectively penalties capable of being imposed on
those responsible in order to prevent unjust enrichment
from illegal activity.

In the present case it has been duly established that Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Community legislation on
controls and penalties for infringements relating to fishing activ-
ities. That failure to fulfil obligations is not only evidenced by
the conclusions reached by the Community inspectors but is
also accepted by the defendant.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the
conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the
protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998 L 125, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of 26 November 1996 laying
down common marketing standards for certain fishery products
(OJ 1996 L 334, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 estab-
lishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy
(OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that,

by failing to carry out satisfactorily the monitoring, inspec-
tion and surveillance of fishing activities within its territory
and within maritime waters subject to its sovereignty or
jurisdiction, including the landing and marketing of species
subject to rules on minimum size under Regulations (EC)
No 850/98 (1) and 2406/96 (2); and

by failing to act with sufficient diligence to ensure the adop-
tion of appropriate measures against those responsible for
infringing Community provisions, in particular by bringing

(Case C-190/07)

(2007/C 129/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

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

Defendant: Italian Republic

9.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/11

Form of order sought

66/401/EEC,

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/117/EC (1) of 22 December 2004 amending
Directives
2002/54/EC,
2002/55/EC and 2002/57/EC as
regards examinations
carried out under official supervision and equivalence of
seed produced in third countries, or by failing in any event
to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 8 of that directive;

66/402/EEC,

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/117/EC
expired on 1 October 2005.

31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to
2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local
government for a limited period of time on the basis of
Articles 6 and 7 of Act C of 1990 on Local Taxes’, be inter-
preted as meaning that:

— Hungary has been granted a temporary derogation
which allows it to maintain local business tax, or that

— by granting the possibility to maintain local business tax
reductions, the Act of Accession also recognises that
Hungary has the (provisional) right to maintain a tax on
economic activities?

(2) Should Question 1 be answered in the negative, the refer-

ring court also asks the following question:

interpretation of Sixth Council Directive
On a correct
77/388/EEC (2), what are the criteria on which a tax may be
considered not to be characterised as a turnover tax for the
purposes of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive?

(1) OJ 2005 L 14, p. 18.

(1) OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
(2) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei
Bíróság lodged on 10 April 2007 — OTP Bank Rt. and
Merlin Gerin Zala Kft. v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

(Case C-195/07)

(2007/C 129/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Appeal brought on 12 April 2007 by Aktieselskabet af
21. november 2001 against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 6 February
2007 in Case T-477/04: Aktieselskabet af 21. November
2001 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha
(TDK Corp.)

Referring court

Zala Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OTP Bank Rt. and Merlin Gerin Zala Kft.

Defendant: Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

Questions referred

1. Must point 3(a) of Chapter 4 of Annex X to the ‘Act of
Accession’ (1) (the Act concerning the conditions of acces-
sion of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the
Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of
Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta,
the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the
Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on
which the European Union is founded), which is applicable
pursuant
the Act of Accession, which
‘Hungary may apply, up to and including
provides that

to Article 24 of

(Case C-197/07 P)

(2007/C 129/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (represented by:
C. Barrett Christiansen, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs), TDK Kabushiki
Kaisha (TDK Corp.)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside in whole the decision of the Court of First Instance
dated 6 February 2007, case T-477/04 (the contested deci-
sion)