CELEX: C1999/033/04
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-06 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-439/98)

6.2.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 33/3
     Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83,                 Regulation (EEC) No 838/93, extend back only to the
     be validly effected only by means of an entry in box 18              point in time when the areas under cultivation ceased
     of the form set out in Annex II to Commission                        to be farmed extensively or is the discrepancy to be
     Decision 83/673 (3) of 22 December 1983 when the                     calculated and deducted for the whole period of the
     claim for final payment is forwarded, pursuant to the                undertaking?
     first indent of Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) and (4) as
     well as Article 6(1) and (2) of the abovementioned
     decision, or do those provisions apply only to                  3. What are the criteria for determining whether there
     inter-departmental procedural formalities, of no                     is a serious infringement within the meaning of
     external relevance since they are not essential, which               Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as
     do not make it impossible for the department                         amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93?
     concerned subsequently to issue a certificate which
     differs from the first certificate, either as a separate
     document or on a fresh form, provided that, in either           (1) OJ L 361, 29.12.1988, p. 13.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 88, 8.4.1993, p. 16.
     case, it takes account of the legal nature of the
     measures in question and complies with the limits and
     conditions laid down by national law for making the
     relevant alteration?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1).           Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
(2) Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983,
    p. 38).                                                                                    (Case C-439/98)
(3) Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on
    the management of the European Social Fund (OJ L 377,
                                                                                                (1999/C 33/04)
    31.12.1983, p. 1).
                                                                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
                                                                     Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of
                                                                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               17 September 1998 in the case of
   Landerzeugergemeinschaft e.G. Gross Godems against
                Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case C-414/98)
                         (1999/C 33/03)
                                                                     1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the European Communities by order of the                                  Commission Directive 95/30/EC (1) of 30 June 1995
Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Administrative Court,                        adapting to technical progress Council Directive
Schwerin) of 17 September 1998, received at the Court                     90/679/EEC (2) of 20 November 1990 on the
Registry on 20 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling                    protection of workers from risks related to exposure
in the case of Landerzeugergemeinschaft (agricultural                     to biological agents at work (seventh individual
producer group) e.G. Gross Godems against Amt für                         Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Landwirtschaft Parchim (Office for Agriculture, Parchim)                  Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), or by failing                 to
on the following questions:                                               communicate such provisions, the Italian Republic has
                                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1. Does the penalty laid down by the first sentence of
     Article 16(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 (1), as            2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93 (2), still
     apply where the discrepancy between the number of
     units for which the aid is requested and the number of
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     units measured is not more than 10 % of the area but
     more than two hectares?
                                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
2. Does the reduction with regard to aid paid in advance,            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     laid down by the second sentence of Article 16(1) of            upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
     Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as amended by                      Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
 ---pagebreak--- C 33/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6.2.1999
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit             refund to a trader financial charges on the value of
expired on 30 November 1996 without the Italian                         exported goods which must be regarded as levied in
Republic having brought into force the necessary                        breach of Community law, on the basis that it is
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred               established that the person who was required to pay
to in the Commission's application.                                     the charges at issue in fact passed them on to other
                                                                        persons, namely the purchasers of the goods, and it
(1) OJ L 155, 6.7.1995, p. 1.                                           does not follow, nor does the trader claim, that that
(2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                         charge caused an increase in the price of the products
(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                          and a reduction in the volume of his sales with the
                                                                        result that he suffered subsequent loss?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
by judgment of that court of 29 October 1998 in the case            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
of Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon            Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
                           Asfalision                               by judgment of that court of 29 October 1998 in the case
                                                                    of Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon
                       (Case C-441/98)
                                                                                               Asfalision
                        (1999/C 33/05)
                                                                                           (Case C-442/98)
                                                                                            (1999/C 33/06)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
Protodikio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First
Instance, Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
29 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                  European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
4 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            Protodikio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First
Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon               Instance, Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of
Asfalision (Social Security Institution) on the following           29 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on
questions:                                                          4 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon
                                                                    Asfalision (Social Security Institution) on the following
1. Does a charge which is levied by a Member State on               questions:
    domestic goods exported to another Member State in
    proportion to their value constitute a charge having
    equivalent effect to customs duties on exports, having          1. Does a charge which is levied by a Member State on
    regard to the fact that that charge, which is invariably            domestic goods exported to another Member State in
    imposed on a particular category of domestic goods,                 proportion to their value constitute a charge having
    in accordance with objective criteria and within the                equivalent effect to customs duties on exports, having
    framework of a general system of taxation, is not                   regard to the fact that that charge, which is invariably
    imposed on domestic products which are distributed in               imposed on a particular category of domestic goods,
    the home market or on like goods which are imported                 in accordance with objective criteria and within the
    into the country from another Member State?                         framework of a general system of taxation, is not
    Alternatively is the abovementioned proportional                    imposed on domestic products which are distributed in
    contribution payable by tobacco exporters Ð which is                the home market or on like goods which are imported
    levied and credited as income of the IKA, a social                  into the country from another Member State?
    security institution, for the benefit of the Tobacco                Alternatively is the abovementioned proportional
    Workers' Pensions Branch Ð by reason of its                         contribution payable by tobacco exporters Ð which is
    objective, that is to say boosting the financial                    levied and credited as income of the IKA, a social
    resources of the particular insurance branch, not                   security institution, for the benefit of the Tobacco
    inconsistent with Community law, in that it constitutes             Workers' Pensions Branch Ð by reason of its
    in a broader sense a contribution in favour of an                   objective, that is to say boosting the financial
    insurance body for the purpose of achieving the social              resources of the particular insurance branch, not
    security objectives in respect of the particular group of           inconsistent with Community law, in that it constitutes
    workers, who may be employed in undertakings like                   in a broader sense a contribution in favour of an
    the plaintiff's, and are in any event entitled, even by             insurance body for the purpose of achieving the social
    means of the imposition of charges such as the one in               security objectives in respect of the particular group of
    this case, to social security, in accordance with the               workers, who may be employed in undertakings like
    appropriate provisions of the constitution of the                   the plaintiff's, and are in any event entitled, even by
    particular Member State?                                            means of the imposition of charges such as the one in
                                                                        this case, to social security, in accordance with the
2. If the first part of the first question is answered in the           appropriate provisions of the constitution of the
    affirmative, is a Member State in principle obliged to              particular Member State?