CELEX: C1999/048/18
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-424/98)

20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/9
van State (Council of State) of 19 November 1998,                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
received at the Court Registry on 23 November 1998, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of W. N. against
Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn on the following questions:         (a) declare that the Italian Republic
1. Must the words a loss of tax' in Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                        Ð by requiring family members of beneficiaries of
     Council Directive 77/799/EEC (1) be interpreted as
                                                                            Directive 90/364/EEC (1) to have resources
     meaning that the loss of tax in question necessarily
                                                                            one-third higher in amount than the minimum
     arises from an express act on the part of the
                                                                            which family members of beneficiaries of Directive
     competent authority of another Member State?
                                                                            90/365/EEC (2) must have;
2. How should the word abnormaal' in the Dutch
     version of that provision be interpreted in that                   Ð by limiting the methods of proof which may be
     connection?                                                            submitted and, in particular, by providing that
                                                                            certain documents must be issued or certified by
                                                                            the authorities of another Member State; and
3. If Article 4(1)(a) is not applicable, can Article 4(3) of
     the directive give rise to an obligation to exchange
     information spontaneously?                                         Ð by requiring students, who are citizens of other
                                                                            Member States, requesting recognition of their
                                                                            right of residence in Italy within the meaning of
(1) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15.                                            Directive 93/96/EEC (3) and members of their
                                                                            family to guarantee to the Italian authorities that
                                                                            they have resources of a certain amount and, as
                                                                            regards the means to be used for that purpose, not
                                                                            clearly leaving the student a choice between
                                                                            making a declaration or such alternative means as
                                                                            are at least equivalent, and by not allowing the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
                                                                            declaration to be used where the student is
di Napoli by order of that court of 29 October 1998 in
                                                                            accompanied by members of his family
             the case brought by Alfredo Albore
                       (Case C-423/98)
                        (1999/C 48/17)                                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                        above-mentioned Council Directives 90/364/EEC (1),
                                                                        90/365/EEC (2) and 93/96/EEC (3);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
di Napoli (Appeal Court, Naples) of 29 October 1998,                (b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 November
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case brought by
Alfredo Albore on a question as to the compatibility of
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Article 18 of Law No 898/1976, as amended by Article 9
of Law No 104/1990, with Articles 6, 52 and 67 of the
Treaty.
                                                                    Ð The amount of family members' income
                                                                        The Commission considers that by requiring family
                                                                        members of beneficiaries of Directive 90/364/EEC to
                                                                        have resources one-third higher in amount than the
Action brought on 25 November 1998 by the Commission                    minimum which family members of beneficiaries of
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic               Directive 90/365/EEC must have, the Italian Republic
                       (Case C-424/98)                                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive
                                                                        90/364/EEC.
                        (1999/C 48/18)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before           Ð The documents which beneficiaries of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC
25 November 1998 by the Commission of the European                      must submit
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                    The Commission considers that, by limiting the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               methods of proof which may be submitted, and by
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
    providing, in particular, that certain documents must          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
    be issued or certified in another Member State, the
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
    under Directives 90/364/EEC and 90/365/EEC.                        so far as it annuls the Commission's decision of 6 April
                                                                       1995;
Ð The provisions on students' resources                            Ð order the applicant to bear Deutsche Post AG's costs.
                                                                   Deutsche Post AG continues to seek the form of order as
                                                                   that sought at first instance, i.e.
    The Commission considers that by requiring students,
    who are citizens of other Member States, and
    members of their family to guarantee to the Italian            Ð to dismiss the IECC's application;
    authorities that they have resources of a certain
    amount and, as regards the means to be used for that           Ð to order the IECC to pay the costs of the proceedings
    purpose, by not clearly leaving students a choice                  including Deutsche Post AG's costs.
    between making a declaration or such alternative
    means as are at least equivalent, and by not allowing          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the declaration to be used where the student is
    accompanied by members of his family, the Italian
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            The judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the
    Directive 93/96/EEC.                                           Commission's decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                   concerns commercial physical ABA remail is based on an
                                                                   error of law. The Court of First Instance has infringed
(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 26.                                    Community law (Article 86 EC Treaty) by finding in
(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990, p. 28.                                    paragraph 105 of its judgment that interceptions of
(3) OJ L 317, 18.12.1993, p. 59.                                   commercial ABA remail constitute an abuse within the
                                                                   meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
                                                                   (2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche Post
AG against the judgment delivered on 16 September by
the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
of First Instance of the European Communities in cases             Dublin, by order of that court of 23 July 1998, in the case
T-133/95 (1) and T-204/95 (2) between International                of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture, Food and
of the European Communities, supported by, in cases                                            Forestry
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and The                                    (Case C-436/98)
         Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste                                       (1999/C 48/20)
                      (Case C-428/98 P)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 48/19)
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                   Dublin, of 23 July 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 3 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                   the case of H.M.I.L. Ltd (formerly Hibernia Meats
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September           International Ltd) against the Minister for Agriculture,
1998 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                Food and Forestry, on the following questions:
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 between International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) and the Commission              1.    Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 (1) and
of the European Communities, supported by, in case                       in particular Article 1 thereof, to be construed as
T-133/95 and T-204/95, the United Kingdom of Great                       meaning that trimmings of less than 100 grams,
Britain and Northern Ireland, Deutsche Post AG and                       when rolled up inside a cut of plate and flank from
The Post Office and, in case T-133/95, La Poste, was                     fresh or chilled hind quarters of adult male cattle,
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      which rolled up cut is then wrapped, do or do not
Communities on 30 November 1998 by Deutsche                              qualify for Special Export Refunds pursuant to the
Post AG, Heinrich-von-Stephan-Straûe 1, D-53175 Bonn,                    said Regulation?
represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   2.    Is Regulation (EEC) No 1964/82 and in particular
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11, Rue Goethe.                           Article 1 thereof, to be construed as meaning that