Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 212/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.7.2001

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT** **JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Third Chamber)**
**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 14 June 2001**

**of 21 June 2001**
**in Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties v Kingdom of Sweden** ( [1] )

**in Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communi-**
_**(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —**_ **ties v Ireland** ( [1] )
_**Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of**_
_**Directive 76/160/EEC)**_

_**(Free movement of goods — Precious metals — Compulsory**_
_**hallmark)**_
(2001/C 212/09)

(2001/C 212/10)
_(Language of the case: Swedish)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_ _(Language of the case: English)_

In Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communities In Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: L. Ström) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) — (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent:
application for a declaration that, by failing to take all M.A. Buckley, assisted by A.M. Collins) supported by United
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
conforms to the limit values laid down by Council Directive R. Magrill, assisted by M. Hoskins) — application for a
76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of declaration that:
bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1) and by failing to adhere to
the minimum sampling frequencies laid down by that directive, —
by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland with the descripthe Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under
tion and indication of fineness which they bear in their
Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive — the Court (Third
country of origin, of articles made from precious metals
Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb(gold, silver or platinum) lawfully manufactured and
er, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
marketed in other Member States but not complying with
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
the Irish provisions concerning standards of fineness, or
given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:
by obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks with
those for the appropriate lower official Irish standard of
1. _Declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure_ fineness;
_that the quality of bathing water conforms to the mandatory_

—
_limit values laid down by Council Directive 76/160/EEC of_ by requiring articles made from precious metals (gold,
_8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water,_ silver or platinum) imported from another Member State,
_and by failing to adhere to the minimum sampling frequencies_ and marketed in Ireland, to bear a sponsor’s mark
_laid down by that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed_ indicative of the maker, worker or dealer in such articles,
_to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that_ registered by the Wardens and Commonalty of Gold_directive;_ smiths of the city of Dublin which appoints the Assay
Master by which these articles are intended to be struck
2. _Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs._ with the approved hallmark, when these articles already
bear a sponsor’s mark conforming to the legislation of
the Member State of origin;

—
( [1] ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000. by requiring articles made from precious metals (gold,
silver or platinum) imported from another Member State,
and marketed in Ireland, which have been lawfully struck
in another Member State With a hallmark stamped by a
body which offers guarantees of independence, and which
offers appropriate information to consumers, to bear an

28.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 212/7

approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master which is 3. _Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern_
appointed by the Wardens and Commonalty of Gold- _Ireland to pay its own costs._
smiths of the city of Dublin;

— ( [1] ) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
by establishing differences between approved hallmarks
struck on articles manufactured in Ireland and those
hallmarks of the same type struck on articles imported
from other Member States,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President **JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advo- **(Second Chamber)**
cate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in which it:
**of 21 June 2001**

1. _Declares that:_ **in Case C-206/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Tribunal Tributa´rio de Primeira Instância do Porto):**
_—_ **SONAE — Tecnologia de Informaça˜o SA v Direcça˜o-**
_by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland with the descrip-_
**Geral dos Registos e Notariado** ( [1] )
_tion and indication of fineness which they bear in their_
_country of origin, of articles made from precious metals_
_(gold, silver or platinum) lawfully manufactured and_ _**(Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — ‘Duties paid**_
_marketed in other Member States but not complying with_ _**by way of fees or dues’ — Charge for entry in the commercial**_
_the Irish provisions concerning standards of fineness, or_ _**register)**_
_by obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks with_
_those for the appropriate lower official Irish standard of_
(2001/C 212/11)
_fineness;_

_—_
_by requiring articles made from precious metals imported_ _(Language of the case: Portuguese)_
_from another Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to_
_bear a sponsor’s mark indicative of the maker, worker or_
_dealer in such articles, registered by the Wardens and_ _(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin which_ _in the European Court Reports)_
_appoints the Assay Master by which these articles are_
_intended to be struck with the approved hallmark, when_
In Case C-206/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
_these articles already bear a sponsor’s mark conforming to_
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
_the legislation of the Member State of origin;_
Tributa´rio de Primeira Instância do Porto (Fiscal Court of First
Instance, Porto) (Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the

_—_
_by requiring articles made from precious metals imported_ proceedings pending before that court between SONAE —
_from another Member State, and marketed in Ireland,_ Tecnologia de Informaça˜o SA and Direcça˜o-Geral dos Registos
_which have been lawfully struck in another Member_ e Notariado — on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 12 of
_State with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers_ Council Directive 69/355/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
_guarantees of independence, and which offers appropriate_ indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
_information to consumers, to bear an approved hallmark_ Edition 1969 II, p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
_struck by the Assay Master which is appointed by the_ 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the
_Wardens and Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of_ Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
_Dublin or an international hallmark notified in accord-_ of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
_ance with the Convention on the Control and Marking of_ Judges; D. Ruı´z-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
_Articles of Precious Metals; and_ Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in which it
has ruled:

_—_
_by establishing differences between approved hallmarks_
_struck on articles manufactured in Ireland and those_ _Article 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969_
_hallmarks of the same type struck on articles imported_ _concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by_
_from other Member States,_ _Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, is to interpreted_
_as meaning that charges for recording an increase in the share capital_
_of a capital company in a commercial register, which increase without_
_Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of_
_upper limit in direct proportion to the nominal capital subscribed and_
_the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);_
_are not calculated on the basis of the cost of the service rendered, such_
_as those at issue in the main proceedings, are not duties paid by way_
2. _Orders Ireland to pay the costs;_ _of fees or dues._