CELEX: C1999/086/18
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Pinerolo by order of that Court of 15 January 1999 in the case of Cristoforo Bertinetto against Biraghi SpA (Case C-22/99)

27.3.1999                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/9
tinente, SGPS, SA and Fazenda PuÂblica, on the following                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
questions:                                                               Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                         its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1. May Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
     69/335/EEC (1) be relied on by a private individual in              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     dealings with the State, even if the latter has not
     transposed that directive into national law?
                                                                         1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                              period the laws, regulations and administrative
2. Must the operations referred to in Article 4(3) of                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     Directive 69/335/EEC be regarded as covered by the                       90/428/EEC of 26 June 1990 on trade in equidae
     prohibition laid down in Article 10 of the same                          intended for competitions and laying down the
     Community measure, in such a way as to preclude the                      conditions for participation therein (1), the Republic of
     collection, under the directive, not only of the tax on                  Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     the raising of capital but also of any other levy, of                    Treaty and that directive.
     whatever kind, in particular one that is a charge rather
     than a tax?
                                                                         2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
3. Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of the same directive be
     interpreted as meaning that the fees payable to the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     notary for recordal in a (legally binding) public
     instrument of resolutions increasing capital or
     amending statutes may not vary according to the
                                                                         On the basis of the mandatory provisions (3) of
     amount of the increase and the amount of the capital,
     respectively?                                                       Article 189 and of Article 5(1) of the EC Treaty, Member
                                                                         States are obliged to transpose the provisions of directives
                                                                         addressed to them into national law within the period
                                                                         prescribed.
4. May those fees Ð see Article 5 of the Schedule of
     Notarial Fees Ð be regarded as depending on the cost
     of the service provided?
                                                                         That period expired for Austria on 1 January 1995, and
                                                                         not all the Austrian Länder have adopted the necessary
                                                                         provisions.
5. What must such cost be construed as comprising?
     Does it include the salary of notaries and of officials in
     their offices, the facilities of such offices and the like?         (1) OJ L 224, 1.8.1990, p. 60.
6. Is it permitted and, consequently legal, having regard
     to Articles 10 and 12(1) of the said directive, for any
     fee to be charged in excess of that cost? And if so, to
     what extent?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circon-
(1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the        dariale di Pinerolo by order of that Court of 15 January
    raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).   1999 in the case of Cristoforo Bertinetto against Biraghi
                                                                                                        SpA
                                                                                                 (Case C-22/99)
                                                                                                 (1999/C 86/18)
Action brought on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against the Republic of                         European Communities by order of the Pretura Circonda-
                               Austria                                   riale (District Magistrate's Court) (Pinerolo) of 15 January
                          (Case C-20/99)                                 1999, received at the Court Registry on 1 February 1999,
                                                                         for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cristoforo
                          (1999/C 86/17)                                 Bertinetto against Biraghi SpA on the following question:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                    Does Article 3 of Council Regulation No 804/68 (1)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  preclude the Italian State from regulating by statute the
on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of the European                     terms of intertrade agreements designed to fix milk prices
Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr, of its Legal                in advance in accordance with the procedures and legal
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
consequences provided for in Law No 88 of 16 March                      control of goods originating outside French territory, and
1988 (2)?                                                               thus constitute measures which are applicable with
                                                                        distinction' within the meaning of the Court's case-law.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 176.
                                                                        Having regard to their nature and purpose, the provisions
(2) Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No 69 of               at issue do not constitute an appropriate instrument for
    23.3.1988, Vol. V, p. 2469.                                         guaranteeing the safety of purchasers of spare parts for
                                                                        motor vehicles; moreover, the French authorities have
                                                                        produced no evidence showing that the goods withheld
                                                                        did in fact involve a risk to the safety and life of
                                                                        individuals. In any event, Article 36 of the Treaty cannot
                                                                        be relied on by a Member State with a view to protecting
                                                                        interests located on the territory of another Member State.
Action brought on 2 February 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-23/99)                                 The exclusive right conferred on the proprietor of rights in
                                                                        a design encompasses the manufacture and marketing of
                         (1999/C 86/19)                                 the goods in question on the national territory, and,
                                                                        having regard to the principle of the territoriality of
                                                                        industrial property rights, it cannot have the effect of
An action against the French Republic was brought before                protecting those rights on markets other than the national
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     market. The mere transit through French territory of
2 February 1999 by the Commission of the European                       goods which have not been manufactured there and which
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                         are not intended to be marketed there does not in itself
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a                constitute an infringement of the exclusive right,
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,              recognised under French law, held by the proprietor of the
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                        rights in a design.
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
Ð declare that, by implementing, pursuant to the Code                   the European Communities against the Federal Republic
     de la ProprieÂteÂ Intellectuelle (Intellectual Property                                     of Germany
     Code), procedures for the retention by the customs                                        (Case C-24/99)
     authorities of goods legally manufactured in a
     Member State of the European Community which are                                          (1999/C 86/20)
     intended, following their transit through French
     territory, to be placed on the market in another
     Member State where they may be legally marketed,
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;                                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 1 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Götz zur
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           Hausen, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos
                                                                        Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     C 254, Kirchberg.
Infringement of Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty: the
legality, under Community law, of the retention by the                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
customs authorities in France of spare parts for motor
vehicles which have been manufactured in Spain and are
intended for the Italian market must be assessed solely by              1. Declare that, by providing, in Paragraph 3 of and
reference to the provisions of Articles 30 to 36 of the                     point 8 in the Annex to the Gesetz über die Umwelt-
Treaty, concerning the free movement of goods, since there                  verträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on the assessment of
has not yet been any harmonisation at Community level of                    effects on the environment) of 12 February 1990, in
the conditions and detailed rules governing the protection                  Paragraph 17 of the Fernstrassengesetz (Law on trunk
of designs for such parts. The French legislative provisions                roads) of 14 April 1994 and in Paragraph 8 of the
at issue in the present case concern the conferment on the                  Luftverkehrsgesetz (Law on air traffic) of 17 December,
French customs authorities of a power which they may                        that projects are in certain circumstances to be exempt
exercise in the context of the controls carried out by them.                from the obligation to carry out assessments of their
Those provisions specifically relate, therefore, to the                     effects on the environment, the Federal Republic of