CELEX: C1996/158/10
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-107/96)

1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 158/5
preliminary ruling in the case of Directeur Général des                1 . Having regard to the facts held to be proved ( ) in part 3
Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA on                      of this judgment ( above all those set out in paragraphs A
the following questions :                                                     to D and L, commencing on the 7th folio and ending on
                                                                              the 12th folio ) and the applicable Community
( 1 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                              provisions, is the dual (2 ) tariff classification assigned to
       No 3677/86 (') of 24 November 1986 laying down                         the goods in question by the Tribunal Técnico de l a
       provisions for the implementation of Regulation                        Instância and later confirmed by the Tribunal Técnico
       No 1999/85 ( 2 ) valid, in that it provides that, in order             de 2 a Instância and the Tribunal Tributârio de 2a
       for goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must fall                  Instância correct ?
       within the same subheading of the Common Customs
       Tariff as the import goods, notwithstanding that the            2 . If not, what is the proper tariff classification ?
       basic regulation, Regulation No 1999/85 of 16 July
       1985 , does not lay down any such condition ?
                                                                       (') The imported goods are an electrical apparatus of the make
( 2 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of               Merlin Gerin , model : Alpes 100 12 KVA, comprising :
       24 November 1986 valid , in that it provides that, in                 ( a ) a cabinet containing:
       order for goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must                      1 , a rectifier-charger which feeds, from the electricity
       fall within the same subheading of the Common                                   network , an undulator and maintains a battery on
       Customs Tariff as the import goods, notwithstanding                             charge;
                                                                                   2 , an    undulator    which converts direct current into
       that such a condition gives rise to disproportionate                            regulated alternating current;
       effects for economic operators ?                                            3 , a static inverter switch which enables surges to be
                                                                                       absorbed without giving rise to a disproportionate
( 3 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of                         feed ;
       24 November 1986 valid, having regard to the                          ( b ) a second cabinet containing a sealed set of lead-acid
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                     accumulators which can operate independently for 30
       and legal certainty, in that it provides that, in order for                 minutes .
       goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must fall within        ( 2 ) The rectifier/charger, the AC converter and the inverter were
       the same subheading of the Common Customs Tariff as                   classified under tariff heading 85.01 B.II.(f) and the cabinet
       the import goods, notwithstanding that that Article,                  containing the accumulators was classified under heading 85.04
                                                                             B.I.
       combined with the provisions of Regulation
       No 2658/87 on the combined nomenclature ( 3 ),
       suddenly made it impossible, with effect from
        1 January 1988 and only until 1 January 1992, for
       persons to avail themselves of the inward-processing
       relief arrangements in respect of compensation on an
       equivalent basis as between cane sugar and beet
       sugar ?
                                                                       Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
(') OJ No L 351 , 1986 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 1985 , p . 1 .                                                                   ( Case C-107/96 )
C ) OJ No L 256 , 1987, p . 1 .                                                                        ( 96/C 158/ 10 )
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Supremo              Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division — Taxation                   Principal Legal Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre,
Matters ) of 28 February 1996 in the proceedings pending               of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
before that court between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz,
Técnico       à   Industria,    Lda,   and   Conselho     Técnico      Wagner Centre .
                              Aduaneiro
                         ( Case C-105 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 158/09 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
 European Communities by an order of the Supremo                               within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
 Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court)                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 ( Second Division — Taxation Matters ) of 28 February                         Council Directive 91 /156/EEC ( 1 ) of 18 March 1991
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC ( 2 ) on waste , the
 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
 before that court between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio                       under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
 Técnico à Industria, Lda, and Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro                      European Community;
 ( Customs      Examination        Board ) on    the    followings
 questions :                                                            2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 158/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   1 . 6 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                                    ( Case C- 1 09/96 )
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to comply                                          ( 96/C 158/ 12 )
with the Directives which are addressed to them within the
period prescribed therein. That period expired on 1 April              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
 1993 without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
force the necessary provisions .                                       3 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                              Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .                            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of                also to communicate to the Commission in due time the
27 March 1996 in the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party:                laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Union professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                   necessary in order to comply fully with Council
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                     Directive 91/371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on the
Queen and Others , party liable at civil law: Vision Express               implementation of the Agreement between the European
                             Belgium SA                                    Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation
                         ( Case C-108/96 )                                 concerning direct insurance other than life
                                                                           assurance (');
                           ( 96/C 158/ 11 )
                                                                       — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
Brussels ) of 27 March 1996 , which was received at the                Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Court Registry on 3 April 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in          European Community directives are to be binding upon
the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party: Union                       each Member State to which they are addressed . The
professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                     Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                 necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Queen, Derek Pouton, Caria Emma Johanna Godts and                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
Youssef Antoun, party liable at civil law: Vision Express              measures to the Commission .
Belgium SA, on the following questions :
                                                                       (') OJ No L 205 , 1991 , p . 48 .
1 . Is a prohibition, arising from the interpretation or the
      application of a provision of national law, restraining
      opticians in other Member States from offering within a
      Member State, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, services consisting of an objective
      eyesight examination, that is to say otherwise than by          Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      using a method by which the client himself determines               European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      the eyesight deficiencies and sees to the corection to be                              ( Case C-1 10/96 )
      made , compatible with Articles 5 , 52 and 59 of the EC
      Treaty ?                                                                                  ( 96/C 158 /13 )
2 . Are obstacles within a Member State to the marketing of           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      equipment which enables an objective eyesight                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      examination to be carried out with a view to correcting          3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
      purely optical eyesight defects, such as, for example, an        Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
      autorefractor, arising from the ban imposed by national         Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
      law on opticians established in other Member States              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
      preventing them from offering, within that Member                Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      State, services consisting of an objective eyesight
      examination, that is to say a non-subjective                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
      examination, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, compatible with Article 30 of the EC          — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      Treaty ?                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                           also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions