CELEX: C2000/355/15
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-352/00: Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Council of the European Union against the Italian Republic

9.12.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/9
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is      Infringement of Article 190                        of  the    EC
      the proper construction of Article 46(2)(b) [of that               Treaty (now Article 253 EC)
      regulation] that ‘the duration of the periods of insurance
      or of residence completed before the materialisation of            Regulation No 1364/00 provides no reason for fixing the
      the risk under the legislation which [the competent                derived intervention price for another five Member States but
      institution of a Member State] administers’ also includes          not for Italy. Neither does Regulation No 1363/00 provide
      those periods of notional contribution corresponding to            any reason for fixing the intervention price. This prevents the
      periods prior to materialisation of the risk which, under          Italian Government from exercising its rights of the defence
      the legislation of the Member State concerned, are to be           and also hinders judicial review of the contested measures.
      taken into account as periods of contribution for the
      purpose of determining the amount of old-age pension?
                                                                         Breach of the principle of equality
                                                                         Article 1 of Regulation No 1364/00 fails to fix the derived
                                                                         intervention price for white sugar in respect of Italy while
                                                                         confirming it for five other Member States.
                                                                         Even though the Italian Government does not know why the
                                                                         Council has refused to fix a derived intervention price for Italy
                                                                         while confirming it for the other Member States, it nevertheless
                                                                         denounces a breach of the principle of equality and complains
Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Council of the                    that it has been treated differently.
         European Union against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 156, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) L 156, p. 1.
                          (Case C-352/00)
                          (2000/C 355/15)
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana by order of that
ties on 22 September 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented           court of 18 January 2000 in the case of Antonio Testa
by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo del Gaizo, acting as               and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Nazionale per le
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention ad
Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-356/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 355/16)
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1364/00 (1) in
      so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      white sugar in respect of all the Italian areas for the            European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
      2000/2001 marketing year; in so far as necessary, also             tivo Regionale per la Toscana (Regional Administrative Court,
      annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation No 1363/00 (2)            Tuscany) of 18 January 2000, received at the Court Registry
      in so far as it fixes the intervention price for Italy;            on 25 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Antonio Testa and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Naziona-
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.          le per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention
                                                                         ad adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA on the following
                                                                         questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.    Must Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council
                                                                               Directive 93/22/EEC (1) of 10 May 1993 (on investment
                                                                               services in the securities field), which contains the defi-
                                                                               nition ‘[m]anaging portfolios of investments in accord-
Infringement of Article 3(4) and (5) of Basic                                  ance with mandates given by investors on a discriminat-
Regulation No 2038/99                                                          ory, client-by-client basis’ be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               that Community provision is infringed by a national
                                                                               provision which departs from it and which, in this case,
The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic                        does not require that the management of portfolios of
regulation by fixing intervention prices (including the derived                investments should be on ‘a discriminatory, client-by-
intervention prices) in June or July 2000 when it should have                  client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
fixed them earlier in August 1999.                                             investors’?