CELEX: C1995/351/02
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma by order of that court of 3 October 1995 in the case of Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Case C-322/95)

30 . 12 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 351 / 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   1 . declares that, by maintaining in force provisions under
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                    which excess amounts of tax deducted from the wages
                                                                           or salaries ofnationals ofa Member State who resided in
                     of 26 October 1995                                    Luxembourg or occupied a salaried position there for
      in Case C-151 /94 : Commission of the European                       only part ofthe tax year are to remain the property ofthe
     Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )                        Treasury and are not repayable, the Grand Duchy of
(Article 48 ofthe EC Treaty — Equal treatment — Taxation                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
of income of temporary residents — Repayment of excess                     Article 48 (2) of the Treaty and Article 7 (2) of Council
                               tax)                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                           freedom of movement for workers within the
                         ( 95/C 351 /01 )                                  Community;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                           costs .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151 /94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
Traversa ) v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: Nicolas
Schmit ) — application for a declaration that, by maintaining
in force provisions under which excess amounts of tax
deducted from the wages or salaries of nationals of a
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                       Circondariale di Roma by order of that court of 3 October
Member State who resided in Luxembourg and/or occupied
                                                                       1995 in the case of Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza
a salaried position there for only part of the tax year shall
                                                                                                Sociale ( INPS )
remain the property of the Treasury and cannot be repaid
nor adjusted , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to                                    ( Case C-322/95 )
fulfil its obligations under Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty                                  ( 95/C 351 /02 )
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community , and in particular Article 7 ( 2 ) thereof ( OJ,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Sixth      European Communities by order of the Pretura
Chamber ), composed of: C.N. Kakouris, President of the                Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates' Court )
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F.A.                  of 3 October 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry
Schockweiler and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave             Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) on the
a judgment on 26 October 1995 in which it:                             interpretation of Article 15 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC )
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 /2               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         30 . 12 . 95
No 547/72 (') and 9a of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2332/89 ( 2 ),                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
in the light of Article 48 of the EC Treaty in order to                     Genova — Sezione Prima Civile by order of that court of
ascertain                                                                   5 October 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) F.lli Carli SpA ( 2 ) Casa
                                                                            di Speditione Viale sas against Amministrazione delle
                                                                                                              Finanze
'whether Article 4 of Law No 222/ 1 984 should be so applied                                            ( Case C-333/95 )
as to extend the reference period for the recognition of                                                   95 /C 351 /04
entitlement to invalidity pension where a worker has been in
receipt of unemployment benefit in another Member State
in which such extension is provided for and , if so, whether
such extension should be subject to conditions .'
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p . 149 .                      Genova — Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa ,
( 2 ) o'| No L 224, 2. 8 . 1989, p. 1 .                                     First Civil Section ) of 5 October 1995 , which was received at
                                                                            the Court Registry on 20 October 1995 , for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the case of ( 1 ) F.lli Carli SpA ( 2 ) Casa di Speditione
                                                                            Viale sas against Amministrazione delle Finanze on the
                                                                            following questions :
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lansratten                      1 . does the suspension of customs duties on imports from
Stockholm, by order of that court of 13 October 1995 , in                         Spain of the agricultural products listed in the Annex to
            proceedings brought by V.A.G. Sverige AB                              the Regulation ( EEC ) No 3835/90 ( } ), as provided for
                                                                                  by Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3416/91 ( 2 ), also
                           ( Case C-329/95 )                                      apply to imports from Spain of preserved tuna in olive
                             ( 95/C 351 /03 )                                     oil ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Lansratten
( County Administrative Court ) Stockholm of 13 October                     2 . May the competent customs authorities, pursuant
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                               to Article 5 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
 19 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in proceedings                        No 1679/79 ( 3 ), as supplemented by Regulation ( EEC )
brought by V.A.G. Sverige AP> on the following                                    No 1715/90 ( 4 ) and Article 2 of implementing
questions :                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2164/91 ( s ) initiate action for the
                                                                                  recovery of customs duties which were not collected at
                                                                                  the time of importation because they were regarded as
 1 . is the requirement of a certificate under the                                having been totally suspended as a result of an erroneous
       Bilregisterkungorelsen (') compatible with the                             interpretation of the Community legislation in force, but
       provisions of Council Directive 70/ 156/EEC (2 ), as                       which subsequently proved to be due on the basis of a
       worded in its latest version ?                                             different interpretation of the same Community
                                                                                  legislation provided by the Commission of the EC after
                                                                                  consulting its Legal Service , where the person liable
                                                                                  observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in
2 . If the answer to question 1 is affirmative, is the                            force as far as his customs declaration was concerned
       requirement in question compatible with Article 30 of                      and it does not appear that that person was aware that
       the Treaty of Rome, or can it be said to constitute a                      the interpretation initially given to the Community
       measure ' having equivalent effect'?                                       legislation by the Italian authorities was erroneous ?
 3 . In the event that the answer to Question 1 is affirmative
       and the answer to Question 2 is that the measure is to be            (')   OJ  No L  370 , p. 126 .
       regarded as a 'measure having equivalent effect', can the            (2)   OJ  No L  324 , p. 11 .
       Swedish certificate requirement be maintained on the                  (•') OJ  No L  197,  p. 1.
       basis of Article 36 ?                                                 (4 ) OJ  No L  160,  p. 1.
                                                                             (■<) Of  No L  201 , p. 16 .
 (') Section 12 , first paragraph , point 9 .
 ( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1970 ( I ), p. 96 .