CELEX: C1999/086/17
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 January 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria (Case C-20/99)

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