CELEX: C1999/226/33
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-206/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April 1999 in the case of SONAE - Tecnologia de Informação S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado

C 226/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.8.1999
Question 3:                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Does Community law impose requirements as to how Member                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
States should define the expressions ‘damage caused by death                 European Parliament and Council Directive 95/26/EC of
or by personal injuries’ and ‘damage to, or destruction of, any              29 June 1995 amending Directives 77/780/EEC and
item of property’ in Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC               89/646/EEC in the field of credit institutions, Directives
of 25 July 1985, or are individual Member States free to decide              73/239/EEC and 92/49/EEC in the field of non-life
what meaning is to be attached to those expressions?                         insurance, Directives 79/267/EEC and 92/96/EEC in the
                                                                             field of life assurance, Directive 93/22/EEC in the field of
                                                                             investment firms and Directive 85/611/EEC in the field of
                                                                             undertakings for collective investment in transferable
Question 4:                                                                  securities (Ucits), with a view to reinforcing prudential
                                                                             supervision, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations under that directive; and
Must Article 9(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ                2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
which, at the time when the damage occurred, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression                 Pleas in law and main arguments
‘damage caused by ... personal injuries’ in relation to the
intended recipient of the organ?                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         submitted in Case C-168/99 (2) the period prescribed in Article
                                                                         6 of the directive expired on 18 July 1996.
Question 5:
                                                                         (1) OJ 1995 L 168, p. 7.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 264, p. 28.
Must Article 9(b) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1985 be construed as meaning that damage to a human organ
which, at the time when the damage was occasioned, had been
removed from a donor’s body for immediate transplant into a
certain other person’s body is covered by the expression
‘damage to, or destruction of, any item of property’ in relation
to the intended recipient of the organ?                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
                                                                         of the First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a
                                                                         Instância do Porto, by order of that court of 16 April
                                                                         1999 in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação
(1) On the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
    provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
    products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29).
                                                                                                   (Case C-206/99)
                                                                                                   (1999/C 226/33)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the First Chamber of the
                                                                         First Division of the Tribunal Tributário de 1a Instância do
                                                                         Porto (Tax Court of First Instance, Oporto) of 16 April 1999,
                                                                         which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 1999, for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling in the case of SONAE — Tecnologia de
Action brought on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of                       Informação S.A. v Direcção Geral dos Registos e Notariado
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      (Directorate General of Registries and of the Notariat), on the
                          Luxembourg                                     following questions:
                        (Case C-204/99)                                  1. May the fees paid for the services of the Directorate General
                                                                             of Registries and of the Notariat be calculated and collected
                                                                             by reference to the amount to which the document relates?
                        (1999/C 226/32)
                                                                             (a) May that amount be unlimited?
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          (b) May that amount be calculated in the manner to which
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                      Question 1relates if there is an upper limit?
ties on 27 May 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal                   2. In compliance with Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as                 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital,(1) must
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office              the court of the Member State reduce the amount payable
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                    in accordance with the upper limit laid down in national
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                           legislation after the action was taken?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/21
3. Must the fees paid for such services be calculated in the                    — C(1999)544, which withdraws the assistance granted
     light of the cost involved in providing the service?                            to Floreurop - Productos Florestais Lda by Commission
                                                                                     Decision C(96)2211 of 13 September 1996 concern-
4. Are such costs those incurred in taking the action and in                         ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-
     maintaining the facilities necessary for taking it?                             bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88
                                                                                     for project No 94.PT.06.015, entitled ‘Demonstration
                                                                                     Project to accelerate agricultural diversification in
5. May the criterion of the economic benefit which the user                          Madeira by introducing products intended for the
     obtains from the action taken be applied in calculating the                     uharmaceutical industry (tea tree oil)’
     amount payable for such action?
                                                                                to the extent to which they are addressed to the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic;
(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969 (II), p. 412.
                                                                            — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas and principal arguments
                                                                            — Breach of the obligation to state reasons (Article 253 EC);
                                                                            — Infringement of Article 23(1) third indent and Article 24
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by the Portuguese                                 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (2) in that, on a correct
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                            interpretation and application of those provisions to the
                              munities                                          projects in question, only the beneficiary undertakings
                                                                                should be responsible for repaying the amounts received:
                                                                                the assistance in question was granted and controlled
                          (Case C-208/99)                                       directly and solely by the European Commission without
                                                                                any involvement of the national management and moni-
                                                                                toring bodies. Nor can the fact that the national authorities
                          (1999/C 226/34)                                       simply accompanied the Commission inspectors be regard-
                                                                                ed as participation in the control process. The Member
                                                                                State cannot be held responsible for irregularities arising
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       in the implementation of such projects nor can it be the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 1 June 1999                     addressee of decisions requiring the recovery of funds used
by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Luı́s Fernandes,                     improperly.
Angelo Seiça Neves and Paula Fragão, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese
Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer, Luxembourg.                                     (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 25.
                                                                            (2) OJ L 394 of 31.12.1988, p. 14.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
— Uphold this application and therefore annul the following
     decisions:
     — C(1999)543, which withdraws the assistance granted
         to Belgravia Lda b, Commission Decision C(93)3403
         of 26 November 1993 concerning the grant of an
         EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contribution under                       Action brought on 4 June 1999 by the Commission of the
         Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 (1) for project                    European Communities against the Italian Republic
         No 93.PT.06.023, entitled ‘Demonstration Project for
         introduction of the cultivation of sea kale’,                                              (Case C-212/99)
     — C(1999)545, which withdraws the assistance granted                                           (1999/C 226/35)
         to Ordinal-Gestão de Investimentos Lda by Com-
         mission Decision C(93)1606 of 21 June 1993 concern-
         ing the grant of an EAGGF, Guarantee Section, contri-              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
         bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 June 1999
         for project No 93.PT.06.002, entitled ‘Pilot and Dem-              by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
         onstration Project for turning to account three Mediter-           by Pieter Jan Kuijper and Enrico Traversa, Legal Advisers acting
         ranean plants (fennel, balm and parsley) through the               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
         extraction of essential oils for the agro-food industry’,          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.