CELEX: C2001/212/11
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Case C-206/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância do Porto): SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação SA v Direcção-Geral dos Registos e Notariado (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — "Duties paid by way of fees or dues" — Charge for entry in the commercial register)

28.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 212/7
      approved hallmark struck by the Assay Master which is                 3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      appointed by the Wardens and Commonalty of Gold-                            Ireland to pay its own costs.
      smiths of the city of Dublin;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
—     by establishing differences between approved hallmarks
      struck on articles manufactured in Ireland and those
      hallmarks of the same type struck on articles imported
      from other Member States,
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advo-                                            (Second Chamber)
cate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in which it:
                                                                                                       of 21 June 2001
1.    Declares that:                                                        in Case C-206/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância do Porto):
      —     by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland with the descrip-       SONAE — Tecnologia de Informação SA v Direcção-
            tion and indication of fineness which they bear in their                        Geral dos Registos e Notariado (1)
            country of origin, of articles made from precious metals
            (gold, silver or platinum) lawfully manufactured and            (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — ‘Duties paid
            marketed in other Member States but not complying with          by way of fees or dues’ — Charge for entry in the commercial
            the Irish provisions concerning standards of fineness, or                                      register)
            by obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks with
            those for the appropriate lower official Irish standard of                                 (2001/C 212/11)
            fineness;
      —     by requiring articles made from precious metals imported                          (Language of the case: Portuguese)
            from another Member State, and marketed in Ireland, to
            bear a sponsor’s mark indicative of the maker, worker or
            dealer in such articles, registered by the Wardens and          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
            Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of Dublin which                                in the European Court Reports)
            appoints the Assay Master by which these articles are
            intended to be struck with the approved hallmark, when          In Case C-206/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
            these articles already bear a sponsor’s mark conforming to      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
            the legislation of the Member State of origin;                  Tributário de Primeira Instância do Porto (Fiscal Court of First
                                                                            Instance, Porto) (Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the
      —     by requiring articles made from precious metals imported        proceedings pending before that court between SONAE —
            from another Member State, and marketed in Ireland,             Tecnologia de Informação SA and Direcção-Geral dos Registos
            which have been lawfully struck in another Member               e Notariado — on the interpretation of Articles 10 and 12 of
            State with a hallmark stamped by a body which offers            Council Directive 69/355/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
            guarantees of independence, and which offers appropriate        indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
            information to consumers, to bear an approved hallmark          Edition 1969 II, p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
            struck by the Assay Master which is appointed by the            85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the
            Wardens and Commonalty of Goldsmiths of the city of             Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President
            Dublin or an international hallmark notified in accord-         of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
            ance with the Convention on the Control and Marking of          Judges; D. Ruı́z-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
            Articles of Precious Metals; and                                Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in which it
                                                                            has ruled:
      —     by establishing differences between approved hallmarks
            struck on articles manufactured in Ireland and those            Article 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
            hallmarks of the same type struck on articles imported          concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
            from other Member States,                                       Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, is to interpreted
                                                                            as meaning that charges for recording an increase in the share capital
                                                                            of a capital company in a commercial register, which increase without
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of      upper limit in direct proportion to the nominal capital subscribed and
      the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC);
                                                                            are not calculated on the basis of the cost of the service rendered, such
                                                                            as those at issue in the main proceedings, are not duties paid by way
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs;                                      of fees or dues.
 ---pagebreak--- C 212/8                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.7.2001
The existence of a maximum which those charges cannot exceed is              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
not sufficient to make them duties paid by way of fees or dues if that             all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary
maximum is not established reasonably by reference to the cost of the              to comply with Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament
service in respect of which the charges are levied.                                and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive
                                                                                   93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                                   operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommuni-
Furthermore, a Member State cannot, without making the charges in                  cations sectors, the French Republic has failed to comply with
question cease to be duties paid by way of fees or dues, introduce into            its obligations under that directive.
the scale of charges payable for a service rendered an element of
solidarity between large and small companies, by establishing, for           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
one and the same service, a higher charge for capital companies with
significant share capital than for those with less share capital, where
that difference in the charge bears no relation to the cost of the service.  (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                                        of 29 May 2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-1/00 SA: Cotecna Inspection SA v Commission
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                                  of the European Communities (1)
                            of 21 June 2001                                  (Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
                                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities)
in Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                                                       (2001/C 212/13)
(Failure by Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive                                    (Language of the case: French)
98/4/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
                            (2001/C 212/12)                                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)                         In Case C-1/00 SA: Cotecna Inspection SA, established in
                                                                             Geneva (Switzerland), represented by J. H. J. Bourgeois, Avocat
                                                                             v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       M. De Pauw and B. Martenczuk) — application for authoris-
                     in the European Court Reports)                          ation to serve a garnishee order on the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities — the Court, composed of:
                                                                             G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
In Case C-439/00: Commission of the European Communities                     M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers,
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues and                D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen,
S. Pailler) — application for a declaration that, by failing to              F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. N. Cunha
adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures                  Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
necessary to comply with Directive 98/4/EC of the European                   Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given an
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending                   order on 29 May 2001, in which it:
Directive 93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures
of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and                    1)    Dismisses the application.
telecommunications sectors (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1) or, at all
events, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,                2)    Orders Cotecna Inspection SA to pay the costs.
the French Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr                     (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 21 June 2001, in which it: