CELEX: C1999/281/18
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-283/99: Action brought on 29 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 281/9
Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer                      — Misuse of powers in terms of view of unequal treatment.
SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA
(C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May
1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of                     (1) Decision of the ECSC Commission of 27 November 1991, OJ
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     1991 L 362 of 31.12.1991, p. 57.
in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96,
T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA,
Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferri-
era Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sider-
camuna SpA, against Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                        Action brought on 29 July 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
              (Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P)
                                                                                                 (Case C-283/99)
                         (1999/C 281/17)                                                         (1999/C 281/18)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases              represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its
T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and                    Legal Service, acting as Agents, the office of Carlos Gómez de
T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera            la Cruz, Wagner Centre Kirchberg.
Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera
Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Com-
mission of the European Communities, was brought before                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July             the Court should:
1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA, having its registered office in
Travagliato (Italy), and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA having        a) Declare that, by providing that:
its registered office in Montecompatri (Italy), both represented
by Carmine Punzi, Mario Siragusa and Filippo Satta, of the                   — private security work (including surveillance or caretak-
Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                           ing of movable property and buildings) may be carried
Helvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill, L-1340                     out in Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private surveil-
Luxembourg.                                                                      lance firms’ holding Italian nationality;
                                                                             — only citizens in possession of such a licence may be
                                                                                 employed as ‘qualified private security guards’;
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC; and
— grant these appeals, amend the contested decision accord-
     ingly and make an appropriate order for costs.                     b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The nationality requirement for ‘qualified private security
— Breach of Articles 4(c) and 95 of the ECSC Treaty inasmuch            guards’ constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for
     as the Court of First Instance held that Article 95 of the         workers contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     Treaty was not applicable to the State aids in question            amendment, Article 39 EC).
     where the requirements were not met for the applicability
     of the derogation under the Fifth Aid Code.                        The requirement of possession of Italian nationality restricts,
                                                                        furthermore, the right of any natural or legal person belonging
— Failure to state grounds for the judgment and misapplica-             to another Member State to work in Italy, contrary to
     tion of Community law inasmuch as the Court did not rule           Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43
     on the unlawfulness of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Code in           EC) on the freedom of establishment. So far as concerns legal
     relation to Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.                       persons, Article 134 of the Consolidated Legislation on Public
                                                                        Security restricts the right to pursue such activity by means of
                                                                        a branch or agency, as expressly provided for in Article 43 EC.
— Breach and eroneous, illogical, irrational and groundless             Thus, the only way in which it would be possible for a foreign
     application of Article 4(2), second indent, of Commission          undertaking to establish itself in Italy would be by setting up a
     Decision 3855/91 (1).                                              subsidiary company under Italian law. Natural persons who
                                                                        are non-Italian Community citizens, on the other hand, are
— Breach, erroneous and groundless application of the                   precluded under Article 138 of the Consolidated Legislation on
     decision of the Commission of 12 December 1994; mis-               Public Security from establishing themselves as self-employed
     taken assumptions; mistaken investigation.                         ‘qualified private security guards’.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
The nationality requirement laid down in Article 134 the               represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal
Consolidated Legislation on Public Security thus cannot be             Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
imposed on service providers established in other countries.           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Such an obstacle is discriminatory and therefore contrary to           Centre, Kirchberg.
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC). The effect of such legislation is to deny undertakings            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
established in other countries of the Community any chance             the Court should:
of providing security services in Italy so long as they retain a
head office in another country.                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
                                                                            order to ensure complete and correct transposition of
                                                                            Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the
                                                                            prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste
                                                                            incineration plants (1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC
                                                                            of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from
                                                                            existing municipal waste-incineration plants (2), the
                                                                            Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht                     under Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 89/369/EEC and
Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case                    Articles 2, 6 and 7 of Directive 89/429/EEC;
 of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco                 — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-284/99)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                        (1999/C 281/19)                                The Commission proposes to limit the present proceedings to
                                                                       the Brussels-Capital Region.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 5 July 1999 from the                  In relation to Directive 89/369/EEC, the Commission refers to
Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg) (Aus-            a series of respects in which the rules applying to Brussels are
tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 July             not in conformity with the directive, particularly as regards the
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of New Yorker               absence of any obligation on the authorities requiring them to
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco on the following               take action in the event that standards are exceeded and the
question:                                                              absence of any detailed provisions regarding the obligations
                                                                       incumbent on undertakings.
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                  In relation to Directive 89/429/EEC, the Commission declares
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,            that Articles 6(3) to (5) and 7(1) and (2) of the directive have
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of               not been transposed.
counterfeit and pirated goods (1) also applicable to situations
in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course
of transit between two States not belonging to the European            (1) OJ L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 203 of 15.7.1989, p. 50.
Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a
Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of
a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been
infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a
Member State of the European Community?
(1) OJ L 341 of 30.12.1994.                                            Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a
                                                                       company incorporated under French law, against the
                                                                       order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet
                                                                           and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                              (Case C-289/99 P)
Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                             (1999/C 281/21)
                            Belgium
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the
                        (Case C-287/99)                                First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between
                                                                       Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (1999/C 281/20)                                was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, represented
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before            by Pascal Barbier, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July            service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Viva Vacances
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    agency, 33 Rue de Strasbourg.