CELEX: C2003/213/09
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-165/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 7 April 2003 in the case concerning notarial costs with the following participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh & Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht Stuttgart and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht Stuttgart

6.9.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 213/5
2.    The Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de                A tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets does not constitute a
      Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral          tax having an economic effect equivalent to capital duty and,
      de Bizkaia, the Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación          accordingly, is not incompatible with Council Directive 69/335/EEC
      Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas Generales de Gipuzkoa and the               concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
      Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco are                 Edition 1969, as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
      ordered to pay the costs.                                              1985.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                   (1 ) OJ 2002 C 261.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
                                                                             Stuttgart by order of that Court of 7 April 2003 in
                           (First Chamber)                                   the case concerning notarial costs with the following
                                                                             participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh
                                                                             & Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht
                          of 27 March 2003                                   Stuttgart and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht
                                                                                                           Stuttgart
in Case C-306/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento,                                                   (Case C-165/03)
Sezione No 6): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and Others v
     Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (1)
                                                                                                       (2003/C 213/09)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/
      335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital)
                           (2003/C 213/08)                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                             (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 7 April 2003, received at the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Court Registry on 10 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the case concerning notarial costs with the following
                                                                             participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh &
                                                                             Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht Stuttgart
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht Stuttgart on the
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             following questions:
                                                                             1)    In a legal system such as that of the Württemberg region
                                                                                   of Baden-Württemberg, where there are both notaries
In Case C-306/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                      who are self-employed and notaries who are employed as
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento                           civil servants and the notary himself is always the person
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                        to whom the fees are due, but where, if the services
before that court between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and                         concerned are carried out by a notary employed as a civil
Others and Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                        servant, he must remit a — fixed — portion of the fees
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC                            to the State, which is his employer and which uses those
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English                   proceeds to fund its activities, are the fees of the notary
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 25), as amended by Directive 85/                     employed as a civil servant for the notarisation of a legal
303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court                         transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, to
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                        be regarded as tax for the purposes of that directive, in
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                      contrast to the situation that gave rise to the order in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                        Case C-264/00 Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH (not yet
27 March 2003, in which it has ruled:                                              published in the European Court reports)?
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/6                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
2)     If so: if the State waives its claim to the portion of the          Appeal brought on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux NV
       fees due to it in respect of that legal transaction, thereby        against the judgment delivered on 25 February 2003 by
       ceasing to enforce the legal provision requiring a portion          the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/
       of the fees to be remitted to the State, do the fees cease to        00 Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union
       constitute a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335?
                                                                                                   (Case C-186/03 P)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 213/11)
                                                                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux
                                                                           NV, represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, with an
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                        address for service in Luxembourg, against the judgment
Amministrativo per la Sardegna by order of that Court of                   delivered on 25 February 2003 by the Court of First Instance
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003 in the case of                        (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/00 Strabag Benelux NV v
Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di                    Council of the European Union.
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Oper-
                              ators s.r.l.                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                          (Case C-174/03)                                        inasmuch as it dismissed the applications for annulment
                                                                                 and compensation on the ground that they were
                                                                                 unfounded;
                          (2003/C 213/10)
                                                                           —     uphold the forms of order sought by STRABAG in respect
                                                                                 of those applications and accordingly:
                                                                                 —     annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                 Council awarded to the DE WAELE company the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                             refitting and general maintenance work contract
tivo per la Sardegna (The Administrative Court for Sardinia) of                        which was the subject of invitation to tender
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003, received at the Court                            No 107865 published in the Official Journal of the
Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                             European Communities S 146 of 30 July 1999, and
case of Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di                        by which the Council implicitly rejected the tender
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Operators                                submitted by STRABAG;
s.r.l. on the following questions:
                                                                                 —     order the Council of the European Union to pay to
                                                                                       STRABAG, subject to any increase, the sum of
(a)    whether, in accordance with the recitals in the preamble                        BEF 153 421 286 or EUR 3 803 214 together with
       to Directive 93/38 (1), a company in the maritime trans-                        interest thereon at the rate of 6 % as from 12 April
       port sector, which in some cases operates under a de                            2000;
       facto monopoly and in others in circumstances of free
       competition and which benefits from State aid is to be              —     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
       regarded as always subject to the Directive 93/98,
       and, in the event that such a company is subject to the
       rules on public notice,                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(b)    whether the ‘technical specifications’ mentioned in                 In support of its application for annulment, the appellant puts
       Article 18 of Directive 93/38 (transposed by Article 19             forward four pleas in law.
       of Legislative Decree No 158/95) must be established
       prior to the procedure for selecting a contractor and               The first plea is divided into two limbs. The appellant first
       whether they are subject to any publicity requirements.             criticises the Court of First Instance for failing properly to
                                                                           construe the concepts of ‘contract’ and ‘decision’ in so far as it
                                                                           took the view that the contract which the Council concluded
( 1) Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the          with the successful tenderer constituted the decision to award
     procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,            the contract. Second, the appellant claims that the Court of
     energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 199 of         First Instance breached Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC
     09.08.1993, p. 84).                                                   concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts in so far as the Court took the view
                                                                           that the written report required under that provision could
                                                                           consist of three documents, that is to say, the report to the