Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 61/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 10. 3.90

Action brought on 31 January 1990 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Italy

(Case C-33/90)

(90/C 61/13)

An action against Italy was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 January
1990 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Sergio Fabro, of its Legal Department,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting the measures necessary
for ensuring in Campania the planning, organization
and supervision of waste diposal as provided for in
Article 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC _(_ _[l]_ _)_ and by failing
to draw up the plans for the disposal of toxic and
dangerous waste mentioned in Article 12 of Directive
78/319/EEC ( [2] ) and by not forwarding those plans
to the Commission, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, Articles 5
and 6 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste,

and Articles 6 and 12 of Council Directive

78/319/EEC on toxic and dangerous waste;

— order the Italian Government to pay the costs.

_The contentions and main arguments in support_ are as
stated in the application.

(') OJ No L 194, 15. 7. 1975, p. 39.
( [2] ) OJ No L 84, 31. 3. 1978, p. 43.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Travail de Nivelles-Section de Wavre by judgment of that
court of 29 January 1990 in the case of Francine De Beir,
nee Plapied, and Danielle Vanderborght, nee Gallez v.
Universite Catholique de Louvain

(Case C-34/90)

(90/C 61/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the

European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
Travail de Nivelles — Section Wavre [Labour Tribunal,
Nivelles, Wavre Section] of 29 January 1990, which was
received at the Court Registry on 2 February 1990, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Francine De Beir, nee
Plapied, and Danielle Vanderborght, nee Gallez v.
Universite Catholique de Louvain [Catholic University of
Louvain] on the following question:

If an individual employer infringes the rule of equal
treatment for men and women contained in Article 119

of the EEC Treaty, are the employees affected entitled,
in view of the precedence of Community law and the
direct effect of that Article, to claim payment of arrears
of supplementary family allowances as from 8 April
1976, in order to ensure that the period in respect of
which they may bring an action is the same as that for
the same right of action under Belgian law?

Action brought on 2 February 1990 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of

Spain

(Case C-35/90)

(90/C 61/15)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 February 1990 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Daniel
Calleja y Crespo, a member of its Legal Service, acting
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Georgios Kremlis, also a member of its legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by exempting from value added tax the
professional services, including those whose
consideration consists in copyright, provided by
sculptors, writers, literary contributors, newspaper
and magazine illustrators and photographers, musical
composers, playwrights and persons responsible for
the plot, adaptation, scenario or script of audio-visual
works, contrary to Article 2 (1) of Council Directive
77/388/EEC ('), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

_Contentions and main arguments adduced in support:_

The activities consisting in the provision of services independently for consideration by artists, writers, authors
and other creators in the intellectual property sphere are,
in accordance with the scheme of the Directive, in
principle subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 (1) of the
Directive. Among the exemptions listed limitatively and
exhaustively in Article 13 _et seg._ of the Directive there
are none which could justify the exemption of the said
professional services.

(') OJ No L 145, 13. 6. 1977, p. 1.