CELEX: C2000/372/05
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-363/00: Action brought on 29 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

23.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 372/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     under heading No 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature. Between
                                                                           July 1990 and May 1995 those cards were therefore to be classified
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  under heading No 8471 as units of machines of that type.
                       of 19 October 2000                                  (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
in Case C-339/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Peacock AG v Haupt-
                      zollamt Paderborn (1)
(Common customs tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff
classification of network cards — Classification in the
                    Combined Nomenclature)                                 Action brought on 29 September 2000 by the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities against the Italian
                          (2000/C 372/04)                                                               Republic
                                                                                                    (Case C-363/00)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                    (2000/C 372/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Septem-
In Case C-339/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                  represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal adviser, acting as Agent,
Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf), Germany, for a pre-                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
liminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court               Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
between Peacock AG and Hauptzollamt Paderborn — on the
interpretation of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, set out in
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                 (a)   Declare that by not making available to the Commission
Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended                          the sum of LIT 1 484 956 000 000 by way of own
by the annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89                         resources within the period laid down by Articles 9 and
of 2 August 1989 (OJ 1989 L 282, p. 1), Commission                               10 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000
Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990 (OJ 1990                             of 22 May 2000 implementingt Decision 94/728/EC,
L 247, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of                          Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own
26 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 259, p. 1), Commission Regulation                        resources (1), and refusing to pay interest for delay on that
(EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992 (OJ 1992 L 267, p. 1),                          amount owed pursuant to Article 11 of the same
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of 10 August                              regulation, the Italian Republic is in breach of its obli-
1993 (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC)                        gations under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of that regulation;
No 3115/94 of 20 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 345, p. 1), —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President             (b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and
L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 19 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           The Commission argues that, by crediting to the Commis-
                                                                           sion’s account only LIT 1 486 594 526 rather than
Note 5 (B) to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the               LIT 1 486 442 594 526 on 30 May 1996, and not crediting
Common Customs Tariff, set out in Annex 1 to Council Regulation            the remainder due until 27 June 1996, the Italian Republic
(EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical             unduly delayed making available Community own resources,
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by               in breach of the regulation.
the annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of
2 August 1989, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of
31 July 1990, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of                    Commission staff therefore considered it necessary to apply
26 July 1991, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of                    Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, (2) providing for pay-
14 July 1992, Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of                    ment of interest where a Member State is late in crediting own
10 August 1993 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 3115/94                   resources to the account opened for that purpose in the name
of 20 December 1994, does not preclude the classification of network       of the Commission with the body designated by each Member
cards designed to be installed in automatic data processing machines       State.
 ---pagebreak--- C 372/4               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
The Commission cannot accept from Member States rectifi-                   3.    Is the requirement laid down in Article 1(b) of Directive
cations with retroactive value such as that made by the Italian                  93/96/EEC that the management of the body governed
Ministry of the Treasury on 27 June 1996, given that credits                     by public law must be subject to supervision by the State
of sums with retroactive value make no sense in a system of                      or a regional or local authority also fulfilled by a
non-interest bearing accounts such as the ‘own resources’                        mere review as provided for through the Kontrollamt
account in the name of the Commission, and to allow                              (Monitoring Office) of the City of Vienna?
accounting rectifications with retroactive effect would deprive
the obligation to pay interest for delay of any practical
effectiveness whatsoever.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 155, 7.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                    (Case C-375/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-
trollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) by order of 14 Sep-                                            (2000/C 372/07)
tember 2000 in the case of Adolf Truley GmbH v
                    Bestattung Wien GmbH
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 October
                        (Case C-373/00)                                    2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                           and Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal
                        (2000/C 372/06)                                    Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 14 September 2000 by
the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien, which was received               The applicant claims that the Court should:
at the Court Registry on 11 October 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Adolf Truley GmbH v Bestattung Wien
GmbH on the following questions:                                           —     Declare that, by failing to draw up a systematic and
                                                                                 complete plan of action at national level, including a
                                                                                 timetable for the improvement of surface water, the
1.    Must the term ‘needs in the general interest’ in Article 1(b)              territorial plan for Lombardy still being missing, so that
      of Council Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993                         the Commission has not been able to carry out a
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                     thorough examination of said national plans, the Italian
      contracts be interpreted as meaning that                                   Republic has failed to comply with Article 4(2) of Council
                                                                                 Directive 75/440/EEC (1) of 16 June 1975 concerning
                                                                                 the quality required of surface water intended for the
      (a)  the definition of needs in the general interest must                  abstraction of drinking water in the Member States.
           be derived from the national legal system of the
           Member State?
                                                                           —     Order the Italian Republic defendant to pay the costs.
      (b) the fact that a regional or local authority’s obligation
           is subsidiary is in itself sufficient for the existence of
           a need in the general interest to be assumed?                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2.    In interpreting the requirement ‘meeting needs ... not               The Commission claims that, although, so far as concerns
      having an industrial or commercial character’ laid down              certain types of water, there have been separate improvement
      in Directive 93/36/EEC, is (a) the existence of significant          plans at regional level, such plans do not cover all the water
      competition an imperative condition or (b) are the factual           referred to in Directive 75/440/EEC, so that the Commission
      or legal circumstances the determinant factors in that               takes the view that the Italian Republic has not drawn up the
      respect?                                                             systematic plan as required under Article 4(2) of the directive.