CELEX: C1999/188/43
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-147/99: Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

3.7.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 188/19
(c) Article 17 of Professional law No 1576 of 1933 has not                The applicant claims that the Court should:
     undergone the slightest amendment, not even by means of
     a reference to the other two measures having force of
     law which are relevant in this area (Legislative Decree              — Annul Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
     No 115/1992 and Law No 149/1994), to make it clear                       1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
     that lawyers from other Member States are not subject to                 Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995
     the condition of nationality or that of possession of an                 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
     Italian university degree, or the requirement of having                  Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (notified under
     undertaken legal training in Italy. That lack of care on                 document number C(1999) 209), (1) in so far as, in
     the part of the Italian legislature creates serious legal                determining the total Italian expenditure chargeable to the
     uncertainty for lawyers from other Member States                         Fund, it made certain financial corrections to the detriment
     intending to establish themselves in Italy.                              of Italy.
(d) The Italian State, by requiring lawyers from other Member
     States to have had training comparable to that of an Italian         Pleas in law and main arguments
     graduate in jurisprudence, is abusing the right conferred
     on it by Article 4 of the said Directive 89/48 to make
     recognition of a professional qualification subject to an
     aptitude test. The difficulty of the aptitude test — the latter      A. Public stocks of cereals — Inspections carried out by the
     being far more difficult than the ordinary examination for               UCLAF through an ‘ente assuntore’ — Quantity of wheat
     entitlement to practise as a lawyer — is a manifestation of              in respect of which expenditure was disallowed
     that abusive, and therefore illegal, application of Article 4
     of that directive.
                                                                              As regards the quantity of wheat in respect of which
                                                                              the expenditure was disallowed, the Italian authorities
(e) Despite the fact that Article 9 of Legislative Decree                     challenge in its entirety the sampling procedure for the
     No 115/1992 conferred on the Minister of Justice the                     product for analysis and question whether the alleged
     power to adopt a decree to regulate generally the conduct                quality defects were indeed present from the beginning.
     of the aptitude test, no such decree has yet been issued. It             They also point out that the comparative analysis of the
     follows, first, that Italian law contains no implementing                quantities of durum wheat actually in storage on the date
     provisions, at least as regards lawyers, and, second, that               of each inspection, and the results of the analyses carried
     the transposition of Directive 89/48 is incomplete.                      out — at the same time and on the same samples — by
                                                                              the two laboratories requested to do so disclose that the
                                                                              quantity of wheat unambiguously recognised by both
                                                                              laboratories as falling below the minimum standard
(1) OJ 1989 L 19, of 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                        required for public intervention was less than that alleged
(2) Case C-55/94 [1995] ECR I-4165.
                                                                              by the Commission.
                                                                          B. Consumption aid for olive oil — Failure to revoke approval
                                                                              for the packaging plants in Italy.
                                                                              The Commission had maintained that the date from which
                                                                              withdrawal of recognition should have taken effect was
                                                                              that of each single application contested, rather than that
                                                                              of the report in which the applications themselves were
                                                                              assessed, regarding as unacceptable the aid allocated to the
                                                                              various undertakings immediately following submission of
                                                                              applications (and before the reports).
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The Italian Government argues that, by refusing to take
                                                                              into account the dates of the reports, the Commission in
                                                                              effect refused to acknowledge that before that date — since
                         (Case C-147/99)                                      no withdrawal had been lawfully provided for — all the
                                                                              payments in respect of previous periods had been properly
                                                                              settled and, consequently, must he recognised as chargeable
                         (1999/C 188/43)                                      to the Community budget.
                                                                          C. Ewe/goat premium
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic,                         The Italian Government contests the correction in question
represented by Professor Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent,                     in so far as it has applied a 25% flat-rate adjustment to the
assisted by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato, with an                   Sicily region for the 1993 marketing year and to the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy,                     Sicily and Calabria regions for the 1994 marketing year.
5 Rue Marie-Adelaïde.                                                         Application of that percentage is unlawful in that it was
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/20               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
     effected after the entry into force of the guidelines for         3) In the absence of appropriate technical and/or scientific
     the application of flat-rate adjustments fixed by the                  justification for the limitation, the limitation of the area
     Commission. In any event, in its final report the concili-             for which aid was payable under the Scheme must be
     ation body itself expressed the view that the Commission               considered as arbitrary. Accordingly, to the extent that it
     had not given sufficient reasons for applying the 25% rate.            limits aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is inadequately reasoned, arbitrary and
                                                                            thereby contrary to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
(1) OJ No L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                       4) The contested decision is a legislative act which retro-
                                                                            actively imposes a limitation of 100 ha under the Scheme
                                                                            contrary to the fundamental principles of legal certainty
                                                                            and legitimate expectations. Accordingly, to the extent that
                                                                            it limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the
                                                                            contested decision is void.
Action brought on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   (1) of 28 April 1989, laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
                                                                           for fibre flax and hemp, OJ L 121,29.04.89, p. 4.
                                                                       (2) of the Council of 29 June 1970 on the common organisation of
                         (Case C-148/99)                                   the market in flax and hemp, OJ English Special Edition 1970(II),
                                                                           p. 411.
                         (1999/C 188/44)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 22 April 1999 by the United Kingdom,
represented by Mr John E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor,
acting as agent, assisted by Mr Alastair Sutton, Barrister of the
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14, boulevard Roosevelt.            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
                                                                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in
                                                                       the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v Landes- Grundver-
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            kehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung
— annul those parts of the contested decision which disallow
     the sum of £869,283.00 from the monies allocated to the                                     (Case C-149/99)
     United Kingdom under the scheme set out in Commission
     Regulation 1164/89/EEC (1);
                                                                                                 (1999/C 188/45)
— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        shof (Administrative Court), Austria, of 23 March 1999, which
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Johannes Blachnitzky v
                                                                       Landes-Grundverkehrskommission beim Amt der Tiroler Lan-
1) Regulation 1164/89/EEC contains no provision limiting
                                                                       desregierung on the following questions:
     Member States’ discretion in deciding on the relevant
     parameters for reviewing the varieties they decide to
     introduce under the Regulation. There is nothing in the           1. Is Article 1(1) of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
     Regulation which imposes a limit of 100 ha (nor even any               1990 on the right of residence (1) in conjunction with
     mention of acreage limitations). The contested decision is             Articles 2(3) and 3 of that directive and possibly in
     based on a misinterpretation of the Regulation and is                  conjunction with Article 6 of the EC Treaty to be
     therefore illegal to the extent that it imposes a limit of             interpreted as meaning that a directly effective right of
     100 ha on the aid payable under the Scheme.                            nationals of another Member State of the European Union
                                                                            to acquire land as a principal residence is in principle to be
2) In taking the contested decision, the Commission in effect               derived therefrom?
     introduced a legislative measure having the effect of
     limiting the scope of Regulation 1164/89/EEC. It did so in        2. Does the acquisition of land by a national of another
     the guise of an administrative decision. It failed to follow           Member State of the European Union in a Member State
     the procedures under Article 12 of Regu-                               for which he possesses a corresponding residence permit
     lation 1308/70/EEC (2). Accordingly, to the extent that it             for nationals of an EU Member State and where he has
     limits the aid payable under the Scheme to 100 ha, the                 his principal residence come under the provisions of
     contested decision is void for manifest lack of competence             Article 73b(l) of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital
     and/or infringement of an essential procedural require-                or those of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988
     ment, in particular of the procedures provided for in                  for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (2) (the
     Article 12 of Regulation 1308/70/EEC.                                  capital transfer directive)?