CELEX: C2000/163/15
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-103/00: Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

10.6.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 163/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 28 April 1999
                                                                          in the case of Welthgrove BV against Secretary of State
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                           for Finances
C-57/00 P.
                                                                                                    (Case C-102/00)
(1) OJ 2000 C 79, p. 22.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 163/14)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 28 April
                                                                          1999, received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2000, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Welthgrove BV against
                                                                          Secretary of State for Finances on the following questions:
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                       1. In light of the judgment in Polysar (1), particularly para-
 the European Communities against the French Republic                          graphs 13 and 14 thereof, where a parent company
                                                                               involves itself in the management of a subsidiary, is the
                           (Case C-84/00)                                      receipt of dividends from that subsidiary to be deemed to
                                                                               constitute consideration for such involvement within the
                                                                               meaning of Article 11(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive (2)?
                          (2000/C 163/13)
                                                                          2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does
                                                                               the mere fact that the appellant involves itself in the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                               management of its subsidiary companies, in the manner
Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                               described in paragraph 14 of the Polysar judgment, mean
European Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
                                                                               that the appellant is to be deemed a taxable person within
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                               the meaning of Article 4 of the Sixth Directive?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          3. If the answer to the first or second question is affirmative,
                                                                               does such involvement come within the exception of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say within
                                                                               the transactions mentioned therein?
— declare that, by failing to allow the marketing within
     France of works made of precious metals which come                   (1) Case C-60/90 [1991] ECR I-3111.
     from other Member States and which indicate a standard               (2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     of fineness of ‘999 parts per thousand’, despite the fact                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     that that standard is commonly used in commercial                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     practice, the French Republic has failed to comply with its              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
     obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
     amendment, Article 28 EC);
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 17 March 2000 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The Commission considers that the exclusion by the French                                           (Case C-103/00)
legislation (1) of a standard of fineness of 999 parts per
thousand, in relation to both works made from gold and                                             (2000/C 163/15)
works made from silver and platinum, cannot be justified
either on grounds of consumer protection or on grounds of
fair trading.                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
(1) In the present case, Articles 521 and 522 of the Code Général des
                                                                          its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
    Impôts (General Tax Code), as amended by Law 94-6.
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to 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,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 163/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.6.2000
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                                     Republic
— declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the requisite
                                                                                                 (Case C-105/00)
     measures to establish and implement an effective system
     of strict protection for the sea turtle caretta caretta on
     Zakinthos so as to avoid any disturbance of the species                                     (2000/C 163/16)
     during its egg-laying period (end of May to end of August)
     and any activity which might bring about deterioration in,         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     or destruction of, its breeding areas, and consequently not        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
     complying with its obligations pursuant to Article 12(1)(b)        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     and (d) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992          represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
     on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     and flora, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its          the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
     obligations under the EC Treaty;                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                             period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council
                                                                             Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 (1), the Portu-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                             Treaty; and
According to the Commission, full and effective implemen-               2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
tation of Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43 requires the adoption
of specific laws, regulations or administrative measures and
the taking of substantive measures on site to protect the               Pleas in law and main arguments
particular species.
                                                                        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
The Commission established in its reasoned opinion that there           Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
was no specific institutional framework whatever for the                to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
protection of the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, a fact       law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
which was not disputed by the Greek authorities in their reply          That period expired on 1 January 1999 without Portugal
of 29 October 1999.                                                     having brought into force the necessary provisions.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting up a
Secondly, the Commission referred in its reasoned opinion to                harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres in
the absence of coordinated measures for the protection of the               length and over (OJ 1998 L 34, p. 1).
sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, above all during the
sensitive period when it lays eggs.
The Hellenic Republic does not deny that it must adopt the
requisite measures to establish an effective system of protection
for the sea turtle caretta caretta on Zakinthos, in accordance
with Article 12 of Directive 92/43.                                     Action brought on 21 March 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                                     Republic
The Commission thus finds that the Hellenic Republic has
failed to adopt appropriate measures to implement Article 12                                     (Case C-106/00)
of Directive 92/43 fully and effectively.
                                                                                                 (2000/C 163/17)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.