CELEX: C2000/247/17
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-185/00: Action brought on 17 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

C 247/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Action brought on 17 May 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                           Finland
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (Case C-185/00)
                                                                                                      (2000/C 247/17)
The Commission incorrectly applied Article 5(2)(c) of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), as amended             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
amending Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the                 represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Ilkka
common agricultural policy (3), read in conjunction with                    Koskinen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of                    for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of               Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure
for clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee
Section (4).                                                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has breached its
                                                                                  obligations as a Member State by failing to fulfil its
The Commission did not observe the proper procedure                               obligations under Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Directive
established by those regulations for reimbursement of funding,                    92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
since it refused, contrary to the above provisions, to fund the                   the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1) and
expenditure which was incurred earlier than 24 months before                      Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 Octo-
the relevant written notification from the Commission to                          ber 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise
Finland concerning the results of the checks done. The                            duties on mineral oils (2), by maintaining in force the laws
Commission exceeded that time limit by the above-mentioned                        and regulations concerning the use of light fuel oil as
Commission Decision 2000/216/EC with respect to                                   motor fuel.
FIM 7 270 885,76 in the reimbursement of funding for the
1996 and 1997 financial years, in that Finland received the
written notice referred to in the above-mentioned provisions                      In particular, it is said that Finland has not implemented
only on 22 December 1998, but the reimbursement of funding                        the fiscal control referred to in Article 8 of Directive
relates, as regards the above-mentioned sum, to expenditure                       92/81/EEC with respect to the distribution and use of
which was incurred earlier than 24 months before receipt of                       light fuel oil. The possibility in Finland of lawfully using
that notification (that is, 16 October 1995 to 21 December                        as motor fuel, by paying tax (motor vehicle tax and the
1996). The documents sent by the Commission before the                            price of the fuel), light fuel oil taxable as heating oil is
letter received on 22 December 1998 were so defective that                        regarded as contrary to Article 5 of Directive 92/82/EEC;
Finland was not able effectively to defend its rights and
properly reply to the Commission’s views. In the telex sent on              2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
20 May 1997, for example, there was no reference to Regu-
lation No 1663/95, and the Commission’s letter dated 17 Sep-
tember 1998, the Finnish text of which was received by
Finland on 24 September 1998, lacked the annex referred to                  Pleas in law and main arguments
in the letter.
                                                                            Article 99 EC (formerly Article 93 of the EC Treaty) requires
                                                                            inter alia the harmonisation of legislation concerning excise
The Commission also incorrectly stated in Decision                          duties and other indirect taxation to the extent that harmonis-
2000/216/EC that it did not concern expenditure incurred                    ation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the func-
earlier than 24 months before the written notification of the               tioning of the internal market. That provision of the Treaty is
results of the checks.                                                      the legal basis both of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of
                                                                            19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of
                                                                            excise duties on mineral oils and of Council Directive
                                                                            92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the
                                                                            rates of excise duties on mineral oils.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
( 3) OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1.                                                   In point 5(e) and (f) of Part IX of Annex XV to the Act of
( 4) OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6.
                                                                            Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, ‘List provided for
                                                                            in Article 151 of the Act of Accession’, Finland is authorised
                                                                            to derogate from certain provisions and obligations in those
                                                                            directives. Those provisions of the Act of Accession do not,
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/15
however, authorise Finland to derogate from the provisions of                  training’issued by the Consulate General and who sub-
the said directives beyond what is specified in those points of                sequently held a temporary residence authorisation
the annex in question.                                                         restricted to vocational training activity with a specific
                                                                               employer fulfil the requirements of the second or third
Finland amended its legislation on excise duties by enacting                   indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-
the new Valmisteverotuslaki (Law on excise duties,                             Turkey Association Council on the development of the
1469/29.12.1994), which was intended to transpose Council                      Association if, from 1 October 1992 to 5 May 1997, he
Directive 94/74/EEC (3) into national legislation. Fuel duty was               was in the training relationship in question and received
amended by the Laki nestemäisten polttoaineiden valmiste-                      for that a monthly training remuneration?
verosta (Law on excise duty on liquid fuels, 1472/29.12.1994).
That law partly transposed Directives 92/81/EEC and                       2.   Does a Turkish national who is the child by birth of
92/82/EEC into national legislation. Neither in this connection                former Turkish workers in the host country fulfil the
nor subsequently was the use in motor vehicles of light fuel                   requirements of the second paragraph of Article 7 of
oil, intended for heating expressly prohibited. With respect to                Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council
that light fuel oil, no provisions or rules on fiscal control are              on the development of the Association if he was adopted
laid down either in legislation or administrative regulations.                 as an adult by German nationals with the effects of
Nor are there any provisions or rules on fiscal control with                   adoption of a minor and his kinship to his natural parents
respect to the distribution of light fuel oil intended for heating.            has thereby ceased to exist? It is sufficient in that respect
There is no control at all with respect to the distribution of                 that he was the child of Turkish workers at the time of
light fuel oil intended for heating, and the minor checks done                 his parents’ legal employment and at the start of his
alongside police road traffic control may not be regarded as                   vocational training?
comprehensive fiscal control with respect to use.
                                                                          3.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
                                                                               second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
Light fuel oil is obtainable in Finland, especially in thinly                  EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
populated areas, from service stations, which can sell it without              the Association if, eight years after leaving the host
fiscal control to anyone. As in Finland no controls are carried                country together with his parents who at that time were
out at all in such cases and there are no sanctions on the                     leaving definitively, he re-entered the country (without
activity of retailers, Finland cannot disclaim its obligation to               his parents) for the purpose of vocational training?
transpose Directives 92/81/EEC and 92/82/EEC in its national
legislation in all respects. It must also be stressed that Finland        4.   Does a Turkish national fulfil the requirements of the
has not been granted any derogation from the fiscal control                    second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
required in the said directives.                                               EEC-Turkey Association Council on the development of
                                                                               the Association if he did not take the last part of the final
(1) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 12.                                             examination in the host country, but in his country of
(2) OJ L 316 of 31.10.1992, p. 19.                                             origin before the host country’s examining board which
(3) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 46.                                             had travelled there?
                                                                          5.   Is it compatible with Article 6 or the second paragraph
                                                                               of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                               Association Council that, in a case where deportation has
                                                                               taken place, residence authorisation must be refused, by
                                                                               virtue of the prohibitive effect of Paragraph 8(2) of the
                                                                               Ausländergesetz (Law on Aliens, AuslG), until a time-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                       limit has, upon application, been placed on the effects of
gericht Karlsruhe by order of that court of 22 March 2000                      the deportation?
in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land Baden-
                          Württemberg
                         (Case C-188/00)
                         (2000/C 247/18)
                                                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
(Administrative Court) Karlsruhe of 22 March 2000, which                                          (Case C-224/00)
was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bülen Kurz né Yüce v Land
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:                                                     (2000/C 247/19)
1.    Does a Turkish national who, with the approval of the               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      competent authority for aliens, entered the country                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
      with a visa ‘valid only for the purpose of vocational               2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,