Case C-218/08: Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2008-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard, public health, safety standard

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/13

Questions referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Treaty establishing the
1. Are Articles 49 and 50 of
European Community to be
interpreted as precluding
national legislation which has established a system whereby
off-course horserace betting is managed exclusively by a
single, non-profit-making operator where, although that
system appears to fit the purpose of combating criminality
and thus of protecting public order more effectively than
would less restrictive measures,
is accompanied by a
dynamic commercial policy on the part of the operator, in
order
to neutralise the risk of unauthorised gambling
networks emerging and to channel bettors towards the
lawful offer, that does not, in consequence, fully achieve the
objective of reducing gambling opportunities?

it

2. Is it appropriate,

in order to determine whether national
legislation such as that in force in France, which has estab-
lished a system whereby off-course horserace betting is
managed exclusively by a single, non-profit-making operator,
is contrary to Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty establishing
to assess the impairment of
the European Community,
freedom to provide services solely from the point of view of
the restrictions placed on offering on-line horserace betting,
or is it appropriate to take into consideration the entire
horserace betting sector in whatever form it is offered and is
accessible to bettors?

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC into
national law expired on 1 January 2007.

(1) OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 141.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Ordinario di Milano (Italy) lodged on 22 May 2008 — Rita
Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli
infortuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

(Case C-217/08)

(2008/C 197/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rita Mariano

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

Defendant: Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infor-
tuni sul lavoro (INAIL)

(Case C-213/08)

(2008/C 197/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Question referred

Whether Articles 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty preclude the appli-
cation of Article 85 of DPR No 1124/1965 in so far as it
provides that, in the event of death as a result of an accident,
only a spouse is entitled to an INAIL annuity at the rate of
50 % and a child [of a non-spouse] is entitled only to an
annuity at the rate of 20 %.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting
certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of
persons, by reason of
the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania (1), and, in any event, by failing to communicate
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-218/08)

(2008/C 197/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 197/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

Form of order sought

Parties to the main proceedings

— declare that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans
for all the establishments for which those plans are required,
the Italian Republic has
its obligations
under Article 11(1)(c) of Council Directive 96/82/EC of
9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances (1), as amended by Directive
2003/105/EC (2);

failed to fulfil

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Seveso II directive pursues the objective of preventing
major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances and
limiting their consequences for man and the environment. It is
clear that the drawing up of external emergency plans is a
fundamental provision of that directive: it ensures that in the
case of accidents urgent measures are adopted to limit their
consequences.

Article 11 applies, by virtue of the references made in Article 9
and Article 2 of
to all establishments where
dangerous substances are present in quantities equal to or in
excess of
the quantities listed in Annex I, Parts 1 and 2,
column 3.

the directive,

The Italian authorities confirm with data from their own
sources that not all the establishments which ought to have
external emergency plans have actually been provided with such
plans.

(1) OJ L 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 345 of 31.12.2003, p. 97.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret
(Denmark) lodged on 28 May 2008 — Dansk Transport og
Logistik v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-230/08)

(2008/C 197/24)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Applicant: Dansk Transport og Logistik

Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Ministry of Taxation)

Questions referred

1. Is the expression ‘seized … and simultaneously or subse-
the
quently confiscated’ contained in Article 233d of
Customs Code (1)
the
to be interpreted as meaning that
provision covers situations where goods detained under the
first sentence of Paragraph 83(1) of the Customs Law on
unlawful
importation are simultaneously or subsequently
destroyed by the customs authorities without their having
left the authorities' possession?

simultaneously or

2. Is the System Directive (2) to be interpreted as meaning that
unlawfully imported goods which are seized on importation
or
subsequently destroyed are to be
deemed to have been placed under ‘a suspension arrange-
ment’ with the effect that the excise duty is not incurred or
is extinguished (see the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) and
Article 6(1)(c) of the System Directive, read in conjunction
with Articles 84(1)(a) and 98 of the Customs Code, and
the implementing provisions (3))? Is the
Article 876a of
answer affected by whether or not a customs debt incurred
extinguished under
importation is
on such unlawful
Article 233d of the Customs Code?

3. Is the Sixth Directive (4) to be interpreted as meaning that
unlawfully imported goods seized on importation and simul-
taneously or subsequently destroyed by the authorities are to
be deemed to have been placed under a ‘customs ware-
housing procedure’ with the effect that the VAT debt is not
extinguished (See Articles 7(3), 10(3)
incurred or
and 16(1)(B)(c) of the Sixth Directive and Article 876a of the
implementing provisions)? Is the answer affected by whether
or not a customs debt incurred on such unlawful importa-
tion is extinguished under Article 233d of
the Customs
Code?

is

4. Are the Customs Code, the implementing provisions and the
the
Sixth Directive to be interpreted as meaning that
customs authorities in the Member State where unlawful
importation of goods during a TIR operation is detected are
competent to charge customs duty, excise duty and VAT on
the operation where the authorities in another Member State,
importation into the Community
where
occurred, did not detect the irregularity and consequently did
not
excise duty and VAT (see
Article 215 of the Customs Code, read in conjunction with

customs duty,

the unlawful

charge