CELEX: C2000/020/32
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-431/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the case of Nedlloyd Lĳnen B.V. against Customs Inspector, Rotterdam District

C 20/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                4. (a) Must a Member State’s legislation such as the VBS be
by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the                              deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,                          Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the EC Treaty,
                       Rotterdam District                                        inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of partici-
                                                                                 pants, particularly inland navigation, from the require-
                                                                                 ment to pay the charge?
                         (Case C-431/99)
                                                                            (b) If so, does such aid come within the prohibition of that
                                                                                 provision?
                          (2000/C 20/32)
                                                                            (c) If Question 4(b) is also answered affirmatively, does
                                                                                 the description of aid prohibited under Community
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           law also have consequences under Community law for
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State                           the remuneration which the participants, apart from
(Council of State) of 4 November 1999, received at the Court                     those exempted, are required to pay?
Registry on 8 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,
Rotterdam District on the following questions:
1. (a) Does legislation such as the VBS, in so far as it provides
        for mandatory participation in traffic accompaniment,
        constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services,
        as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 in
        conjunction with Article 59 (now Article 49) of the EC
        Treaty?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 November 1999 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, is it otherwise if participants in the scheme are
        charged for services provided?
                                                                                                 (Case C-432/99)
    (c) Must Question 1(b) be answered differently if that
        charge is levied on participants in the scheme whose
        participation is mandatory, though not on other users                                     (2000/C 20/33)
        such as inland navigation or sea vessels with a length
        of less than 41 metres?
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
2. (a) If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
        constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,         represented by Hendrik van Lier, of its Legal Service, and
        does such restriction then come under the exception             Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
        provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC           Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
        Treaty for provisions justified on grounds of public            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
        security?                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    (b) Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2(a)        The applicant claims that the Court should:
        whether the charge is greater than the actual cost of
        the service provided to the individual vessel?
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
                                                                            any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission
3. If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge                 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    and such restriction is not justified under the exception               tive 96/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC                   Council of 3 September 1996 on energy efficiency require-
    Treaty, can the restriction be justified either because it              ments for household electric refrigerators, freezers and
    merely concerns a ‘sales arrangement’, as laid down in                  combinations thereof, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to
    Keck and Mithouard, and there is thus no question of                    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    discrimination, or because it meets the yardsticks for such
    legislation laid down in other judgments, in particular in
    Gebhard?                                                            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.