CELEX: C2000/372/07
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-375/00: Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

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.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/5
The legislation adopted by the Italian authorities on 18 May            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 merely regulates the activities of bodies and organisations
with the purpose of drawing up, adopting and putting into
operation plans for water catchment areas for improving                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
surface waters as well as drawing up, adopting and putting into         in Case C-335/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
operation intervention programmes with the same objective.              on 3 February 1999, but the Federal Länder of Mecklenburg-
However, it does not directly adopt any specific plan. Accord-          Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony,
ingly, it is no more than a proposal for the implementation of          Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein have not to date taken
the obligations under Article 4(2) of the directive rather than         the necessary measures under Article 11 of the directive
actual implementation thereof.                                          concerning the drawing-up of emergency plans.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 26.                                               (2) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000, p. 16.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsisch-
                                                                        en Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of 28 August 2000
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtsch-
                                                                        aftskammer, Hanover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe
                                                                                            and Irmtraut Bredemeier
Action brought on 18 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                        (Case C-384/00)
                                                                                                (2000/C 372/09)
                         (Case C-383/00)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of 28 August 2000 by the
                         (2000/C 372/08)                                Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Adminis-
                                                                        trative Court for Lower Saxony), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 20 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtschafts-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   kammer, Hanover: joined parties Wilhelm Wieggrebe and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            Irmtraut Bredemeier on the following question:
ties on 18 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Is an agricultural holding received through ‘similar means’
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        within the meaning of Article 3a of Council Regulation (EEC)
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                         No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
                                                                        amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (2) of
                                                                        13 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), where, following expiry
                                                                        of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by the producer
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             under Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, (3) the holding is leased
                                                                        by him to the husband of the designated heir before 29 June
                                                                        1989 on conditions more favourable than normal market
(1) declare that, by failing within the time-limit prescribed to        conditions?
      take all necessary measures in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving                (1) OJ L 90, p. 13.
      dangerous substances, and in particular Article 11 thereof,       (2) OJ L 150, p. 35.
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its          (3) OJ L 131, p. 1.
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.