CELEX: C1998/055/29
Language: en
Date: 1998-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-408/97)

20.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/15
2. On a proper construction of the Combined                         The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
     Nomenclature, as established by Annex I to                     yet adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of                      directives at issue fully into the Greek legal order.
     10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs             (2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
     Tariff, such goods are to be classified under the              (3) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
     heading which occurs last in numerical order, namely           (4) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 67.
     subheading 6212 10 00.
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
                                                                    Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Glasoltherm
                                                                    Sarl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                              Communities
Action brought on 11 November 1997 by the Commission                                        (Case C-399/97)
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                           Republic                                                           (98/C 55/28)
                       (Case C-385/97)
                         (98/C 55/27)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities on 19 November 1997 by
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                 Glasoltherm Sarl, represented by Mr Penciolelli, lawyer, of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             18 Avenue de la LibeÂration, 91130 Ris Orangis (France).
on 11 November 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          Glasoltherm Sarl claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        to support by all means, including the provision of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             financial assistance, over a period of 10 years from the
                                                                        date of entry into industrial service of the two
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit               demonstration operations referred to, the action taken
     laid down the laws, regulations and administrative                 by a commercial company formed by Glasoltherm Sarl
     provisions necessary in order to comply with:                      to market Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating
                                                                        technology in the European Community,
     Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) of 22 December
         1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC (2) on the               Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
         financing of health inspections and controls of                to pay the costs.
         fresh meat and poultrymeat, and
     Ð Commission Directive 94/59/EC (3) of 2 December              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         1994 amending for the third time the Annexes
         to Council Directive 77/96/EEC (4) on the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
         examination for trichinae (trichinella spiralis) upon      Case C-388/96 (1).
         importation from third countries of fresh meat
         derived from domestic swine,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997, p. 11.
                                                                        OJ C 295, 27.9.1997, p. 9.
         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
         obligations under the Treaty and those Directives,
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                    Netherlands
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which they are addressed.                                         (Case C-408/97)
Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty,                                         (98/C 55/29)
Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from             An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
actions taken by the institutions of the Community.                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.98
Communities on 4 December 1997 by the Commission of                 Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber              of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
and H. Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                                       Luxembourg
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                                           (Case C-410/97)
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
                                                                                              (98/C 55/30)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Ð declare that, by not charging value added tax on tolls            Communities on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of
     for the use of highway infrastructures, contrary to            the European Communities, represented by Marie
     Articles 2 and 4 of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/           Wolfcarius, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
     EEC) of 17 May 1977 (1) the Kingdom of the                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
     the EC Treaty, and                                             Kirchberg.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Kingdom of Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                    Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Council Directive 92/29/EEC of 31 March 1992 on
                                                                         the minimum safety and health requirements for
The Commission Ð like the Netherlands Government Ð                       improved medical treatment on board vessels (1), the
takes the view that the tolls charged in the Netherlands                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
constitute consideration for the supply of a service within              obligations under that Directive,
the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
However, the Netherlands Government wrongly considers
that the bodies governed by public law charged with the             Ð order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
operation of facilities for which a toll is levied are acting            costs.
in that regard as public authorities within the meaning of
the exception in Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive. In the
first place, a body governed by public law is taxable as a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
general rule and exemption is an exception to that rule.
The first subparagraph of Article 4(5) constitutes an
exception to Article 4(1) and (2). The fact that the second         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
and third subparagraphs of Article 4(5) constitute                  those relied upon in Case C-406/97 (2); the time-limit for
exceptions, in turn, to the first subparagraph does not             transposition expired on 31 December 1994.
detract from the exceptional nature of that first
subparagraph; on the contrary, it confirms that it provides         (1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 19.
for a systematic exception. In the Netherlands                      (2) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998, p. 11.
Government's argument, the rule and the exception
appear to be reserved. The fact that exemption constitutes
an exception is further confirmed by the fact that there
would have been no need for the exemptions under, in
particular, Articles 13 and 28 of the Sixth Directive if
bodies governed by public law had not been subject to the
VAT system. Any other interpretation would run counter              Action brought on 5 December 1997 by the Commission
to the general character of the Community VAT system.               of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
The charging of tolls is not inherent in the exercise of                                        Belgium
public authority, which includes the construction, making
available and maintenance of certain infrastructures such                                  (Case C-411/97)
as tunnels and bridges, but a separate activity forming
                                                                                              (98/C 55/31)
part of the operation thereof. There is no reason why
there should be no question of acting as a public authority
in relation to supplies of gas etc. whilst such should be the
case as regards the operation of bridges and tunnels.               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 5 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                      Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
                                                                    Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.